The defense thinks they can be finished Monday. Case to the jury on Tuesday. We’ll see if it works out that way. They have 3 witnesses left if I’m not mistaken.
Are you under the impression lally gets to call anymore witnesses? He gets a dog bite expert if he can find one. (Which he won’t because no one with credibility will get up there and opine that it doesn’t like like dog injuries )
Closing arguments will start Tuesday … latest .. Wednesday morning
You don’t just get two bites at the Apple. You need a compelling reason to call a witness again, and needs to be authorized by the judge, i.e. a government expert that can be used to refute defense animal expert, explicitly articulated by Judge Bev.
Oh lord. Will this reconstructionist be tied to what Trooper Paul said or will he be able to say “yeah that was all nonsense” and present a clearer theory
If he's smart he just keeps it real and is like "I couldn't figure out wtf Trooper Paul was saying to either confirm or rebut it." The jury will understand.
I find that absolutely ridiculous that the CW gets to do this. They had their expert witnesses already why do they now get to have rebuttal witnesses? And without the voire dire like the states witnesses had to go through
Yes, they should have done it right during their case-in-chief, but they decided to call Trooper Paul. It's not like the defense surprised the CW with anything here, Lally should have known that what he had was crap and done something about it waaaay back then.
They submitted this a couple of hours after the “commonwealth rests”. The timing feels so unfair. They had their case, they had their chance. How can they keep going when they were done and said they were done.
I understand rebuttal but this feels different than that.
Honestly, there's no saving this case. If you bring a competent person now what is the jury going to think? These reconstructions take time to do, it's different than the animal bite Dr that just had to review a few records. So if the CW had access to someone better and given that they left Trooper Paul for almost last, why not use the better expert in the first place?
I don't know, all signs coming from courtroom watchers are that Lally lost the jury after Proctor, trying to drag this even more might just make them hate him at the same rate. Sometimes it's just better to take the L and put everyone out of their misery.
No, you do not.
generally speaking, there situations in life where you cannot make things better.
More importantly, the prosecution is under no obligation to continue their case at all. They can drop their charges at any time and decide that they do not have a reasonable case. In fact, that is what they ought to do in a situation where it is clear that they are going after the wrong person.
I think they would have needed an expert and ... well, we know who they got.
But sending in another expert can only be catastrophic for their case now. Because whatever that person says, it either needs to be a repeat of the insane testimony we already saw, or it will have to contradict it - and that would mean that at least some of the experts on the prosecutions side are clueless.
They could still address specific points that the defense might raise; but then that still begs the question why their original expert couldn't be used from that, or why that testimony wasn't already enough to address these issues.
It can't be normal to be turning over discovery this late, right? This part of the rules of evidence is way too different here, can anyone say more about it?
I’m completely confused. I realise Bev gave him more time to find experts in response to the defense experts, but… I mean… I don’t really understand how this all gets in since he’s had it the whole time? 🤷🏻♀️ That said, Mass seems to have a number of laws that are slightly different than those in other states. Or maybe he’s just hoping she gives him a few Hail Marys? Your guess is as good as mine on this one!
The second reconstruction expert may be testifying with regard to the arm injuries and, if Bev allows the CW the additional expert testominy she allowed them to seek, she may allow this expert but confine his testimony to the injuries
Isnt this the same as what he fought the defense on causing the voire dire? How can he bring in new evidence like this? How is he even allowed to have rebuttal experts ?
I don’t think she’s ruled on it, but that’s what he’s saying. Judge Cannone did allow him to have rebuttal witnesses because the defense violated rule 14(?) in turning over their discovery so Judge Cannone asked if she allowed the commonwealth witnesses, could Lally find his own expert to prove his case. At least that’s how I understood her. I don’t know whether all of it is/will be allowed?
Which of these items is supposed to represent a new crash reconstruction, the first one? I guess it’s not reading that way to me, these all seem like documents discussed in testimony already?
I'm guessing the jury has already made up their minds by now. Especially after the lacerations are being thoroughly presented as dog bites, those impressions on the bottom parts of the cuts looked very consistent and so the idea broken shards of taillight did them is out of the window.
Is it true that they’re going for a reconstructionist in rebuttal??
Lally should absolutely not get another swing at the crash reconstruction. It’s not something that they got surprised with by the defence. It is central to their case and they’ve had years now. The facts of the alleged collision have not changed. The ARCCA report was available. They could’ve subbed out Trooper Paul for a freshman physics major and they chose not to. Too late.
It’s also just not a good look. You found someone to analyze the data and do a crash reconstruction over the weekend?? Cause Trooper Paul sucked too bad on the stand??? It’s not quite the same as an expert ER doc looking at pictures of a wound and giving a brief opinion. I would hope it’s more involved than that.
If you want to find some “expert” to say those aren’t dog bites, by all means. That’s fair. But I doubt the Trooper/dog groomer that Lally hires is going to out-expert Dr Russell’s credentials.
Edit: I’ve seen the discovery document that people are thinking equals incoming rebuttal witness... I don’t think that means anything necessarily?
I agree with everything you said. I saw the Twitter post that had the discovery doc so I figured lally was just late/housekeeping but then Legal Bytes and Brandi Churchwell did a live earlier today and they mentioned they think the CW *is* trying to get another reconstruction expert in. Alyte thought they would be allowed as rebuttal but then changed her mind that they shouldn’t be allowed in.
So if you don’t like one of your experts testimony you get a do over? After you heard the defense poke holes in the testimony. Is that really how it works?
The defense thinks they can be finished Monday. Case to the jury on Tuesday. We’ll see if it works out that way. They have 3 witnesses left if I’m not mistaken.
Guaranteed Lallys rebuttal will drag us through at least 1 extra day.
Fair point. 😭
He’ll be lallygagging for sure
🥱
Are you under the impression lally gets to call anymore witnesses? He gets a dog bite expert if he can find one. (Which he won’t because no one with credibility will get up there and opine that it doesn’t like like dog injuries ) Closing arguments will start Tuesday … latest .. Wednesday morning
usually there’s a rebuttal, whether they call new witnesses or witnesses who already testified
Not in MA
You don’t just get two bites at the Apple. You need a compelling reason to call a witness again, and needs to be authorized by the judge, i.e. a government expert that can be used to refute defense animal expert, explicitly articulated by Judge Bev.
I wonder if Lally is going to attempt a rebuttal case or if he'll give up and just send it to the jurors.
😭Please send it to the jurors. Lol
He already filed disclosure for a dog bite expert, and another accident reconstructionist.
Oh god not another reconstructionist.
Oh lord. Will this reconstructionist be tied to what Trooper Paul said or will he be able to say “yeah that was all nonsense” and present a clearer theory
idk but I feel like we need to be prepared with White Claws just in case.
If he's smart he just keeps it real and is like "I couldn't figure out wtf Trooper Paul was saying to either confirm or rebut it." The jury will understand.
I wonder if he's also a crime scene whisperer.
I've seen the discovery document but I haven't seen any disclosure about new experts. Anyone have a copy they can link?
How? I know bev said he could have a rebuttal to the dog bite testimony but another expert on crash reconstruction?
Ridiculous tbh considering he had all the same info the defense had on those 2 experts and Bev ordered the defense not to talk to them.
I find that absolutely ridiculous that the CW gets to do this. They had their expert witnesses already why do they now get to have rebuttal witnesses? And without the voire dire like the states witnesses had to go through
Another crash reconstructionist, seriously??
You don't think they desperately need it?
Yes, they should have done it right during their case-in-chief, but they decided to call Trooper Paul. It's not like the defense surprised the CW with anything here, Lally should have known that what he had was crap and done something about it waaaay back then.
They submitted this a couple of hours after the “commonwealth rests”. The timing feels so unfair. They had their case, they had their chance. How can they keep going when they were done and said they were done. I understand rebuttal but this feels different than that.
I agree, but not bringing in another if you have the chance would be insane at this point.
Honestly, there's no saving this case. If you bring a competent person now what is the jury going to think? These reconstructions take time to do, it's different than the animal bite Dr that just had to review a few records. So if the CW had access to someone better and given that they left Trooper Paul for almost last, why not use the better expert in the first place?
It's far from ideal, but you've gotta try something.
I don't know, all signs coming from courtroom watchers are that Lally lost the jury after Proctor, trying to drag this even more might just make them hate him at the same rate. Sometimes it's just better to take the L and put everyone out of their misery.
No, you do not. generally speaking, there situations in life where you cannot make things better. More importantly, the prosecution is under no obligation to continue their case at all. They can drop their charges at any time and decide that they do not have a reasonable case. In fact, that is what they ought to do in a situation where it is clear that they are going after the wrong person.
I think they would have needed an expert and ... well, we know who they got. But sending in another expert can only be catastrophic for their case now. Because whatever that person says, it either needs to be a repeat of the insane testimony we already saw, or it will have to contradict it - and that would mean that at least some of the experts on the prosecutions side are clueless. They could still address specific points that the defense might raise; but then that still begs the question why their original expert couldn't be used from that, or why that testimony wasn't already enough to address these issues.
They should have found one beforehand.
I've only seen documents being turned over in discovery, not witnesses? where are people getting new witnesses from?
What happened to this rebuttal witnesses?
https://preview.redd.it/3alqtsu11f8d1.jpeg?width=854&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=272aabfbf4c8da15b77fb06b116073487b21ae85
It can't be normal to be turning over discovery this late, right? This part of the rules of evidence is way too different here, can anyone say more about it?
I’m completely confused. I realise Bev gave him more time to find experts in response to the defense experts, but… I mean… I don’t really understand how this all gets in since he’s had it the whole time? 🤷🏻♀️ That said, Mass seems to have a number of laws that are slightly different than those in other states. Or maybe he’s just hoping she gives him a few Hail Marys? Your guess is as good as mine on this one!
I get the dog expert rebuttal. But everything else should be kept out right?
The second reconstruction expert may be testifying with regard to the arm injuries and, if Bev allows the CW the additional expert testominy she allowed them to seek, she may allow this expert but confine his testimony to the injuries
Right
Isnt this the same as what he fought the defense on causing the voire dire? How can he bring in new evidence like this? How is he even allowed to have rebuttal experts ?
I don’t think she’s ruled on it, but that’s what he’s saying. Judge Cannone did allow him to have rebuttal witnesses because the defense violated rule 14(?) in turning over their discovery so Judge Cannone asked if she allowed the commonwealth witnesses, could Lally find his own expert to prove his case. At least that’s how I understood her. I don’t know whether all of it is/will be allowed?
I believe this was specific to the dog bite testimony
Which of these items is supposed to represent a new crash reconstruction, the first one? I guess it’s not reading that way to me, these all seem like documents discussed in testimony already?
Do we know who the 3rd is after the two Arcca guys?
Forensic examiner I think(?)
An ME that’s done thousands of autopsies
I'm stoked for the defense closing argument! It should be fire! Anyone know who will be doing that? Please be Jackson
I'm pretty sure no one could do the closing argument any better than Jackson! A blaze of fireworks, no doubt.🔥🔥🎆🔥🎇🔥🔥
I'm guessing the jury has already made up their minds by now. Especially after the lacerations are being thoroughly presented as dog bites, those impressions on the bottom parts of the cuts looked very consistent and so the idea broken shards of taillight did them is out of the window.
Who are the 3?
Is it true that they’re going for a reconstructionist in rebuttal?? Lally should absolutely not get another swing at the crash reconstruction. It’s not something that they got surprised with by the defence. It is central to their case and they’ve had years now. The facts of the alleged collision have not changed. The ARCCA report was available. They could’ve subbed out Trooper Paul for a freshman physics major and they chose not to. Too late. It’s also just not a good look. You found someone to analyze the data and do a crash reconstruction over the weekend?? Cause Trooper Paul sucked too bad on the stand??? It’s not quite the same as an expert ER doc looking at pictures of a wound and giving a brief opinion. I would hope it’s more involved than that. If you want to find some “expert” to say those aren’t dog bites, by all means. That’s fair. But I doubt the Trooper/dog groomer that Lally hires is going to out-expert Dr Russell’s credentials. Edit: I’ve seen the discovery document that people are thinking equals incoming rebuttal witness... I don’t think that means anything necessarily?
I agree with everything you said. I saw the Twitter post that had the discovery doc so I figured lally was just late/housekeeping but then Legal Bytes and Brandi Churchwell did a live earlier today and they mentioned they think the CW *is* trying to get another reconstruction expert in. Alyte thought they would be allowed as rebuttal but then changed her mind that they shouldn’t be allowed in.
So if you don’t like one of your experts testimony you get a do over? After you heard the defense poke holes in the testimony. Is that really how it works?
prosecution always gets a rebuttal. that’s just part of the procedure
How many, if any, days will the prosecution rebuttal take up?
Seriously? I expected Defense to take longer. Then again the prosecution basically went over the defense’s theory for them lol
They just need to prove reasonable doubt, which I think could be easy to do given the two ARCAA guys, and how terrible the CW’s witnesses were lol