I am first going to say that I don't know exactly what I can and cannot post. Most of the paperwork has the minor children's names somewhere in it. So I must be careful. I am, however, going to give some initials for some people. I think that will make it easier to read. In this blog, I am going to quote some of the original trial transcript as to possibly answer some questions about our attorney. Ok here we go.
Before the trial ever started, the attorney's only went into the judge's chambers. Still don't know exactly what was said. Our attorney told us it was about motions. The judge was about to begin and a member of the other side was causing some issues. It had to do with my nephew, my brother's oldest son, I'm gonna call him AW. His STEP-GRANDDAD was causing the issue. You have to understand that at this time AW had not seen or talked to his dad in over a year. He was very bitter. But the step-grandad wanted to be present in the courtroom while AW testified. And only him. He finally got his way and was allowed to do just that. For 'moral' support they said. And after AW testified, the step-grandad spent the rest of the day at the trial sitting right outside the courtroom with one of the jurors husband. They obviously were friends.
Judge said Motion in Limine. Gregor first motion related to step-grandad being in the courtroom and that had already been decided on. So we move on. Gregor then moved for preliminary ruling at this point in time regarding the Rape Shield Statute. (which I will from here on out refer to as, RSS) Official Code of Georgia Annotated Section 24-2-3. Mr. Gregor then referred to one of our witnesses. Pg. 13 line 19 of transcript. I quote "she indicated to us that would lend itself to her testimony might involve claims that our victim engaged in some sort of sexual behavior with another child. (the other child was AW) Now, the RSS absolutely prohibits that sort of evidence coming in." Gregor then says " I always put this into play in these cases but it is up to the court in limine." I am now going to type this as it appears in transcript. Starting at the next paragraph. Next was the judge.
THE COURT: It requires notice and a hearing doesn't it?
MR GREGOR: It does Your Honor, The hearing to pierce the RSS And there's no notice in this particular case.
THE COURT: All right. Mr Levitt? (our atty)
MR LEVITT: Judge the only thing is my client is charged with in Georgia is 4 counts that supposedly happened on the interstate that only he and the accuser (gonna call him JH) were party to. I'm not aware of any RSS issue with regards to those. I think in looking over Georgia law I don't know collateral items he's going to go into. For instance, he may try to claim that stuff happened in Alabama in a shower and I thing both JH and AW were present. I don't know what-again, I don't know what his proof is and I understand the RSS but I guess it sort of depends on I don't know what the Court is going to let in or not let in.
THE COURT: Well, if he hasn't filed any similar transaction notice I don't imagine he's going to be talking about anything in Alabama. Would I not be correct Mr. Gregor?
MR GREGOR: Well, Your Honor, we do intend on talking about Alabama because it relates specifically to this victim.
THE COURT: You're talking about incidents that occurred in Alabama between this defendant and JH?
MR GREGOR: Yes, Your Honor
MR LEVITT: Judge, I don't know what proof this is that they think-there's only, as far as I know, my client and JH were in the vehicle in Dade County, that's all I know.
THE COURT: Well-
MR LEVITT: And again, that's my problem is I don't know where, you know, I don't know what kind of proof they're going to try to get in so I don't know how to respond without knowing what they're going to try to get in.
THE COURT: Well, let's- we're getting ahead of ourselves. First, talking about the RSS. It does not appear to be- you're stating that you don't- there's been no notice of any evidence that would be admissible by the defense?
MR GREGOR: There has not. And in informal discussions with Mr. Levitt I haven't gotten that indication. However, our investigator talked to one witness on Mr. Levitt's and the defendant's witness list who gave that indication to us that she expected, and quite frankly to our investigator she even said, well, that's about enough, I've talked about that enough, I'll just have my say on the stand. What I was concerned about is during that conversation with this particular witness she raised these issues that JH, our victim, has been engaged or she believes might have been engaged in some sort of sexual contact with another child and that's what I'm talking about the rape shield protecting my victim from any allegations that he somehow is engaged in sexual activity with someone else. (JH the victim is 16 at this point).
THE COURT: All right. Do you have a written motion on this motion in limine?
MR GREGOR: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Absent a written notice your intent to cross the rape shield law nothing will be admitted. And I suggest you talk to witnesses very carefully because I'm not going to tolerate them interjecting something into this trial anymore than I'm going to tolerate 'step-granddad's bad behavior that is not legally admissible in the trial. So I would suggest that everyone after opening statement bone up on the rape shield law, make sure in Georgia that you know exactly what I'm saying.
MR LEVITT: Judge, if they could just tell me what it is- I think he may be confusing some witnesses is what I'm saying.
THE COURT: I don't want to pre-try this case, I just want to try it.
More of the transcript tomorrow!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Angie, you are doing a great job. This is my first post on your blog, but have on Bill's several times. Just be patient in the waiting, keep writing, and it will pass. Much LUCK to you.
ReplyDeleteWow! Gregor sounds as confusing here as he did in Tonya's trial. Talk about speaking around a subject. He had no clue, just wanted all the important stuff excluded so he could chalk up another win. And the meat of the trial still has to come. Keep it coming, Angie. In these cases, power lies in knowledge. Keeping quiet always has innocent people ending up in more trouble than they can handle. Your brother's attorney sounds like he dropped a lot of balls before opening arguments. I caught the sense Levitt suspected Gregor held back evidence but the fool never said the words.
ReplyDeleteThe post states:
ReplyDeleteGregor then moved for preliminary ruling at this point in time regarding the Rape Shield Statute.
(Then, in portions of transcript on the subject to the Rape Shield Law they said)
THE COURT: It requires notice and a hearing doesn't it?
MR GREGOR: Well, Your Honor, we do intend on talking about Alabama because it relates specifically to this victim.
THE COURT: ... there's been no notice of any evidence that would be admissible by the defense?
THE COURT: All right. Do you have a written motion on this motion in limine?
MR GREGOR: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Absent a written notice your intent to cross the rape shield law nothing will be admitted.
MR LEVITT: Judge, if they could just tell me what it is- I think he may be confusing some witnesses is what I'm saying.
THE COURT: I don't want to pre-try this case, I just want to try it.
This part, to me, reads as if Gregor was trying to get in a select limit of the blocked testimony (just parts of the facts) that is not allowed by the RSS, while at the same time avoiding the Notice required, limiting the defense from doing the same (the rest of the facts) AND NOT revealing what may be considered as exculpatory or inculpatory evidence Levitt is unaware of (and the judge won't share it either!).
Levitt was clearly NOT up on what the judge and Gregor knew about the "collateral items" involved here.
Not knowing much on this case, I can only guess what this is leading up to. My guess is that Gregor is hoping to actually violate the RSS and tell the jury just enough so that the alleged victim looks to be one with some experience in the sexual activities that would be a crime if an adult was involved, all SOLELY to make the jury feel that if this alleged victim had done it before, well he probably did it again with the adult.
It's tough to guess what's what here!
Nope kbp. The facts are that the victim was having sexual misconduct with another child. Who happened to be my brother's oldest child. This is what Mr. Gregor did not want to come out. Our witnesses were gonna testify to actually seeing these two kids with thier pants down. We had 5 people who saw them at one point or another. And of course what Brad was gonna testify to. But the application of the RSS prohibited any of that info to come in. There are interviews with AW's mom that say some pretty bad things he had been caught doing when he wasn't with JH. But when he was with him it was the two of them doing things with each other and doing things to the 3 yr. old as well. Hopefully it will make more sense in a couple more posts.
ReplyDeleteGood grief! Mr. Levitt appears to be as ignorant of the law as I am. I don't know what to say other than I am so sorry for what has happened to your family. I hope that it means something to you that I continue to pray for your family and for justice. All of you are in my heart and on my mind everyday.
ReplyDelete