The jury has reached a verdict in Jennifer Crumbley's manslaughter trial over the 2021 Oxford High School shooting carried out by her son Ethan Crumbley.
I watched the whole trial. The verdict was definitely just, but her lawyer didn’t do her any favors. At one point, in a moment of frustration, her lawyer exclaimed ‘I’m going to kill myself’, at a trial for a mother of a kid who killed a bunch of kids.
She ‘opened the door’ to a whole bunch of evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible, including the defendants infidelity and the entire text communications between the defendant and her husband.
She said “I’m sorry” about a thousand times, which I am convinced was an intentional strategy to associate the defense with being sorry.
They weren’t supposed to use the shooters name but she used it three times in her opening statement.
Most of her objections were not valid legal objections, but just argument.
The whole thing was a train wreck, I actually feel bad for her (the attorney not the defendant).
She ‘opened the door’ to a whole bunch of evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible, including the defendants infidelity and the entire text communications between the defendant and her husband.
Article:
But, during the defense’s questioning, Smith suggested that police intimidated and threatened Meloche into providing his testimony, so prosecutors pushed back and sought to allow the judge to include evidence that the two had an affair. Prosecutors argued that Meloche was not pressured, but that he didn’t want information about their affair to become public.
Smith was the lawyer. Sounds like the lawyer fucked up.
The defense opened the door by going down a line of questioning which would permit the prosecution to cross based on texts which were previously ruled off limits. She was given a chance to move on to a different line of questioning, but she (defense attorney) insisted on continuing with that line of questioning, with full knowledge that all of the texts would then be admitted, just so she could make her point about the witness potentially being intimidated by the police.
She was trying to say that the witness was threatened with loosing his job, in reality the witness was intimidated about his wife finding out he was having an affair with the defendant.
After the dramatic exchange between defense and prosecution where the prosecution insisted that the judge force the defense to clearly state that thy are ok with the full text exchange being admitted, she agreed, saying “I have no problem with all of the texts being admitted, I have no problem with opening the door”
Her next question to the witness was “did you feel that the police were intimidating you by telling you that you might loose your job”… he responded “no.” So there was no payoff for the defense on that line of questioning. Then the prosecution asked during cross “were you worried about your wife finding out that you were having an affair with the defendant” and he replied “yes”.
Classic case of don’t ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.
I didn’t read the article, I watched every moment of the trial.
I watched the whole trial. The verdict was definitely just, but her lawyer didn’t do her any favors. At one point, in a moment of frustration, her lawyer exclaimed ‘I’m going to kill myself’, at a trial for a mother of a kid who killed a bunch of kids.
She ‘opened the door’ to a whole bunch of evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible, including the defendants infidelity and the entire text communications between the defendant and her husband.
She said “I’m sorry” about a thousand times, which I am convinced was an intentional strategy to associate the defense with being sorry.
They weren’t supposed to use the shooters name but she used it three times in her opening statement.
Most of her objections were not valid legal objections, but just argument.
The whole thing was a train wreck, I actually feel bad for her (the attorney not the defendant).
You:
Article:
Smith was the lawyer. Sounds like the lawyer fucked up.
You’re saying the same thing as the OP? “She” being the lawyer.
Maybe read the first paragraph
🤦♂️ might want to work that bud
The defense opened the door by going down a line of questioning which would permit the prosecution to cross based on texts which were previously ruled off limits. She was given a chance to move on to a different line of questioning, but she (defense attorney) insisted on continuing with that line of questioning, with full knowledge that all of the texts would then be admitted, just so she could make her point about the witness potentially being intimidated by the police.
She was trying to say that the witness was threatened with loosing his job, in reality the witness was intimidated about his wife finding out he was having an affair with the defendant.
After the dramatic exchange between defense and prosecution where the prosecution insisted that the judge force the defense to clearly state that thy are ok with the full text exchange being admitted, she agreed, saying “I have no problem with all of the texts being admitted, I have no problem with opening the door”
Her next question to the witness was “did you feel that the police were intimidating you by telling you that you might loose your job”… he responded “no.” So there was no payoff for the defense on that line of questioning. Then the prosecution asked during cross “were you worried about your wife finding out that you were having an affair with the defendant” and he replied “yes”.
Classic case of don’t ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.
I didn’t read the article, I watched every moment of the trial.