Lawyer Reacts to Camille Vasquez's Objections in Court | Depp v. Heard Trial
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 11. 09. 2024
- Let's analyze Camille Vasquez's objections during the re-direct of Amber Heard. If you're interested in more reactions to the Amber Heard v. Johnny Depp trial, then let us know!
_____________________________________________________________________
TRIAL AD ACADEMY đ„đ„
bit.ly/2svSR2h
This is an online course that will take you step-by-step through all of the stages of trial and will arm you with the tools needed to thrive under the pressure!
_____________________________________________________________________
** FREE Cheat sheet: 21 Trial Objection + BONUS: bit.ly/2ufpAXw
ââ The Objection Cheat Sheet has over 5,000 downloads! ââ
** FREE Mini E-book: 10-Step Formula for the Perfect Opening Statement: bit.ly/2uUCQ3X
If you have any questions, then please don't hesitate to ask! Be sure to subscribe and you can follow me at:
Law Venture: lawventure.com
Instagram: bit.ly/2Mz3neS
Twitter: bit.ly/2JKIBew
Facebook: bit.ly/2HU6L0o
Personal Website: JarrettStone.com
_____________________________________________________________________
Now the boring stuff:
This is not legal advice. This content and all of Law Venture's content is for informational purposes only. You should contact your attorney to obtain legal advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship of any kind.
Full disclaimer: bit.ly/2JjVjQT
about Heard looking at the jury being effective tactic lol. she over did it. and we know because we watched the trial and felt strange by the fact she's constantly talking and staring the jury while responding. btw you may not know, but one of the juror that spoke anonymously after the trial, said "The crying, the facial expressions she had, the staring at the jury, all of us were very uncomfortable"
This is great input!
You have to watch from the cross to understand the objections. Amber didn't admit over her medical records to Johnny team only her therapist notes. It no longer becomes an exception to the hearsay objection cause there's no proof of it being a medical treatment. In regards to the eye contact with the jury, she over did it where it became uncomfortable.
The reason all these hearsay where accepted is because AH didn't give any medical record to the court, so AH team was trying to present her testimony as the truth to the jury (to prove injury).
Is there a video showing Heard's side offering the medical records and the court rejecting them? That would be really interesting to see. Or did Heard's side just never offer the records at trial?
â@@LawVenture They never offered them, they tried to submit the records of Amber's therapists notes. The problem is that they were notes of Amber relaying her "abuse" to her therapist and her therapist recording them in her notes. Essentially trying to get Amber's testimony into evidence without calling the therapist and subjecting her to cross, like "did you ever see her bruised?" "did you ever see her with a cast from broken bones?" etc.
â@@LawVenture not only that, but amber went to the ENT a year after they had broken up trying to use tissue damage for this long after as evidence. You really should watch amber being cross examined
@@LawVenture She testified that there were no records because she didn't go to a doctor up until long after they have divorced.
@@LawVenturethe issue is that she saw the doctor one year after her relationship ended with Depp
I watched the whole trial and there was no medical evidence admitted to corroborate any injuries. No medical testimony or reports. How is it not hearsay for her to talk about non-existent reports?
And btw, the breathing difficulties can be attributed to cocaine use.
Also, the EMT visit she had was years after her & Depp were already divorced! Her claims didn't make sense or physically impossible & no evidence to back it & her stories has changed or grew into more & her whole testimony was God awful. She took plenty of pictures but were exaggerated or looked staged & many other big problems! A.H.'s side pressed hard J.D.'s Substance AB where it was over kill & they downplayed A.H.'s to nonexistent when there is actually a lot of proof, video/interviews of her being really intoxicated, people who knew her recalling her having a major problem with the white stuff, x & similar drugs & prescribed to some major meds & loved her red wine. She took no accountability, blamed everyone else & her side pulled some shady behavior! There is just so much to explain & I didn't pay attention until the trial already started & have done my research & just after her testimony it painted a better picture Imo!
Wait... no medical testimony or reports??? That's wild to me!
Thanks for the context!
@@LawVenture during her cross examination she testified that she never got any medical treatment for any injuries she claims she suffered while she was with him, so she has no medical records about them. she said a year after she left the relationship she got her nose checked out and tried to bring in something that her ear, nose and throat doctor told her about the damage to her nose, itâs just weird to me that with all of the claimed injuries, is she saying she just let everything heal naturally, she got no infections, contracted nothing? no leftover scarring?
@@LawVenture A lot lies are being spewed here by Depp fans.
4:48 I would say "Who did you tell" is leading in that it assumes she did tell someone, when she also could have told no one, which was exactly what was in question here.
It is not leading. It may assume a fact not in evidence (that she told someone), but "who" calls for a name, and nothing in the question suggest the name. "Did you tell X?" would be leading.
It's a good take but these have context behind them. Elaine was trying to slip in xrays into evidence about her nose injuries.
And also trying to admit her therapist's notes as medical reports. As evidence of abuse.
I think you are mistaken about the hearsay exception regarding medical diagnosis. The exception allows a doctor to testify to a patient's/declarant's description of symptoms, causes, events, conditions, etc... made for the purpose of a medical diagnosis. It does NOT provide a hearsay exception for the doctor's ACTUAL diagnosis. You must have that doctor testify to admit that type of expert testimony.
âCan you name themâ is hearsay because sheâs about to say âwell this person and this person and this personâ when they werenât called to testify in the trial. Amber could just name 100 people she told and those people canât be crossed examined on if they were told.
This is why you need to look into this trial more, re the heresay objections,amber doesn't answer questions ever with a yes or no answers, she goes on a tangent and starts giving information that's not relevent to the question trying to get things in and trying her look because she had lied so much it's ridiculous, and the looking at the jury, ms heard literally looks at the jury constantly, smiling, pulling sad faces, and even if it's the shortest answer she looks at each individual juror, when they're at the bench she's looking them all up and down wanting to see what reaction she's getting from them all the time, a juror has actually spoken out after this trial and says it was an awkward amount and they all stopped looking at her
For the "Looking at the Jury" Part. It's not the looking itself, that was off-putting. It was the way she did it. The clip you showed was the most natural, she ever looked in direction of the Jury.
Most of the time it felt more manipulative. Like she was scanning her audience to see how they react.
For the Objections.
I think Ms. Vasquess just wanted to prevent another waterfall of words. When it comes to things Amber Heard "wants" to tell us, like each and every minute detail of her horrific "abuse", she seems to be hard to stop. One would think a Victim would want to get quickly over that to avoid the painful memories. Not her though.
The Leading objections, I would presume, were preventive measures. Amber Heard's Team added a lot of prejudicial details into their questions, which made it at times feel like they tried to bias the jury. Since the lawyers are not the ones under oath, they could tell the jury whatever they want just by how they ask their questions.
An example of that would be the "Waldman statements".
Amber Heard's team would consistently refer to them as the "Depp , Waldmann statements" even though no evidence ever suggested, that Waldman was acting in Depp's name.
Thanks for the input!
If you watched the way Amber testified throughout the trial & the way her lawyers asked questions then you'd understand why the judge is sustaining the objections! Amber NEVER just says Yes or No answers & her lawyers continuously testified for her!
A juror later did say it was creepy "The crying, the facial expressions she had, the staring at the jury, all of us were very uncomfortable"
Confusion over the ent specialist, that's because this has already been brought up because amber went to the ent a year after her and Johnny had split up and is trying to use this document as though its proof that this "injury"happened during their relationship. And it wasn't even proof of a broken nose. Which she claimed he had broken her nose at least 3 times with ridiculous photo evidence trying to claim a broken nose, then she says later, she THOUGHT it was broken. This trial was a nightmare because of all the lies. And she didn't produce anything btw, only notes from her therapist. Not any Dr or hospital visit. Elaine knows she's wrong that's why she didn't try to fight it
18:40 "What, if anything, did you produce..." is a leading question because it is suggesting that she produced something which is itself a contested fact. An open ended question in this case where the action she took is contentious would be "What did you do next?" or something like that. This is where thorough witness prep comes in otherwise direct (or exam in chief as we call it) and re-direct (or re-exam) can be a nightmare once the objections start flying in.
These objections require watching Amberâs testimony to realize that she had no evidence and barely told anyone of the alleged abuse. Elaine was trying to bolster Amber with âoh who did you tellâ???? Well she didnât testify to telling them on directâŠ
So frustrating watching him commenting on 10 seconds video without all the context we all know.
"'what if anything did you produce' is not a leading question" ? maybe ... but "what if anything did you produce in relation to your consultation with an MD at this date?" when its been 15 mins of her trying to get the supposedly medical records in is pretty much leading in my book . if they want to get medical records in, they bring the doctor in to testify, because as far as I'm concerned they have pulled an Xray from google image claiming it was Heard's.
Who did you tell will bring a name right????
If she had answer and said i told sasha,gary and malcolm why not bring sasha, gary and malcolm to testify that she had told then she was being abused...... call your witness to testify for you.. they didn't call them then their is no point in calling or mention the names.....
Am not a lawyer just a regular person just stating my opinion..
This is interesting going in so cold at the tail end in what was the biggest part of the trail. A lot of your questions were fought over before this
There was no proper medical records admited (because she admited not going to the doctor for her alleged injuries during all their relationship) They were just trying to make AH testify as if she was an expert doctor... You really must see the trial! I also think that Camille used the objections as an strategy to show the jury how AH reacted.
Why didn't they have the so called ENT to testify that would have proven she lied
It's understandable you can't watch the whole trail to get your questions answered but it is a shame you started here and not cross at least. Imo seeing her testimony would be best to understand how things got here but again I get you can't watch days of footage
Haha yeah, I definitely don't have the time to go through the entire trial. I actually had no idea how long the trial actually was until yesterday.
Then please lawyer don't give your expert opinion without seeing the whole trial
â@@yassyabdinasir5303Right? And it's funny how many people in his comments section are being "validated" in their ignorant opinions by him because he himself is ignorant of the context lol
You should have watched the cross before. Amber's attorney seemed to be trying to let Amber change her answers from cross...or something. Fir example, during the cross, it came out that AH saw these doctors two years after her divorce.
I know it would be too many hours of your time not to get back, but Iâd love for you to watch the whole trial. Itâd help you with all the content.
Also, Elaine is bringing up things that had been agreed to beforehand and one was anything about the divorce and settlement! She kept doing it. The transcripts sure answer a lot of questions
âWhat if anything did you learn from your visit with the Dr?â Not leading.
â what if anything did you learn from your visit with your doctor⊠About your nose?â Leading.
Thatâs the difference. Sheâs not stopping at the open ended part of the question. It becomes a leading question when she narrows it down to a specific region of the body.
About her nose testimony... She said she saw a nose doctor 2 years after the divorce. The doctor didnât testify. She is describing horrific abuse, like being punched with chunky rings multiple times until she passed out, broken nose, cavity search, her hair being pulled out, thrown around and landed to the pinpon table, broken beds, bloody pillows, being penetrated with the bottom of the whiskey bottle and being bleed down there, had to walk when the floor was full of glass and her feet being slided.
There is no medical report. None. She is not testifying to âshe kicked me, punched me here and thereâ. If what she said ever happened, she had have at least one hospital records. She is saying âit wasnât that bad, I didnât have to go to the hospitalâ
If you watched the whole trial you would under why her medical record was not allowed. She did not go to the doctors to get her nose looked at for well after a year her and johnny broke up. Also she admitted to using coke a lot, which can cause long term damage to your nose.
I think Deppâs attorney is just making the objections to throw off her opponent and impress the jury as to comparative competency of the two.
That's a great point. It may have thrown the judge off as well.
Itâs the courts job to take control and prevent this, it was difficult to watch both attorneys abuse the rules of evidence. But the constant âIâm tryingâ made me lol đ
Incorrect. Amber went to the ENT a year after her relationship with Johnny, and had no proof she had a broken nose, if you remember, she said it was broken a few times during their relationship, but when Camille asked photos of her nose with no swelling, amber then changed it to, will I thought it was broken. And leading the way I saw it was because she was explaining the whole thing to answer, almost giving her the answer to make it easy for amber, because amber has lied so many times and changed her testimony so many times because she kept being proven she lied.
Something heard said is not hearsay because she is in court to be crossexamined. The whole point if the objection is the inability to crossexamine the out of court declarant.
I am not a lawyer so i might not fully understand all your reasoning so please dont take me too seriously, but i have some basic knowledge, watched fair amount of cases, lawyers explaing, and also i might be biased as i watched this whole trial and know all the context, but i really have problems with your reasoning here. Very strict as well, almost if i was read a textbook not supported by any real life experience. The way you many times say it was baseless to sustain by the judge when it was obviously leading, it was pretty much like Elaine who seem not to be able to understand that even if she kept changing her wording from "What was your reaction" to "What if any", even if she gave in the gramatical sense option for both yes and no, it doesn't mean that the question wasn't still leading, sense stayed the same. Like a robot or something.
23:51
Aalllso, basicly (as was already explained in the comments) there was no medical evidence provided, she claimed she was treated, but there is 0 proof of it happenning beside her saying she was hurt, also she was objected for not being a specialst and this is continuation as she kept talking about scar tissue she has no knowledge to give such statements
I agree itâs good for her to look at the jury when she answers the questionsâŠHOWEVER I am so sorry but it is creepy bcus of the amount of times she does it (with every last question)as if it just a robotic thingâŠSheâs doing it in a very (unnatural) way thatâs freaking weird and so predictable..
WAAAY TOO OVER THE TOP!
I LOVE your reaction videos - so many nuggets!! Please do more!!
Could it be that Virginia has different hearsay rules from the FRE? If I remember correctly they sued in state not federal.
Possibly. I just did a quick google search and Virginia has the hearsay exception of "Statements for purposes of medical treatment," which seems to track the FRE version.
From other lawyer's explanations, if there's doctors diagnose, go get the doctor's diagnose. Amber can say or make up anything, which is hearsay and should not be presented in court.
Did this guy even watch the whole trial? AH was creepy talking to the jury. She turned her head toward EVERY time, and she answered a question. Even every yes and no answers. The judge did an excellent job presiding over the trial!! She was not bias for either side. Granted, Elaine was a pain on the neck. By the way, a jury member said it made them very uncomfortable! Some even said they started turning the seat and starting looking at the jury. It is hearsay because they didn't bring the records or the doctor to the trial. I'm glad you weren't the judge.
"Who did you tell" is leading because it assumes you told somebody. The correct question would be, "Did you tell anybody", and then you can ask "who"?
The ENT records were not in discovery or they were produced too late so Judge Penny said they could not come in.
Her ârecordsâ are just a consultation with an ent (AFTER she left Johnny) of a photo of a text book diagram of the sinuses and a note saying possible scar tissue.
From what? Who knows. Lol
They tried to say JD cut his own finger off! No supporting docs! Guitar player? No cut
Does anybody know the answer to this: If a lawyer asks an improper question on cross examination and when the opposing counsel objects, the cross examiner says something like "I will not retract that question, but we don't need to hear the answer to it either" does the question remain on the record without the answer? Similarly, what happens if the cross examiner upon being objected to says "No Further Questions" before the witness can answer or the judge can rule?
The leading is not in âhow many peopleâŠâ part, since âhow manyâ is an open question. The leading is in the next part âhave you sharedâŠâ. At this point I donât know if she have already said she has shared the information with someone. The issue is in the verbe âshareâ. First, did she really share before? Then we are able to ask âwhomâ. I think.
What about the defendant's lawyer mispronouncing the plaintiff's lawyer's name? And when she objects, her affect is not like a bully but like being beleaguered. What is the truth I don't know.
Great video! I love how you explain things. Can you please do a video on Darrell Brooks acting as his own attorney and how horrible of a job he did. Thank you
Oh my Mojlinir....I'm trying....
Wow....I am not an attorney BUT
I believe this is RIDICULOUS..
I believe A. Habba IF she said she " did not know how to try the case" at court after recieving consideration should be charged with Criminal fraud .
Elaine trying to talk,
Amber should have hired Mike Riss who has out of this world photographic memories to pull out those exemptions with those hearsay objections.
How did you watch the redirect before the cross? Donât you need context to the objections?
â€OMG, EVEN JUDGESâ€DONT UNDERSTANDâ€THESE RULESâ€â€
The reason that people call it creepy when Amber very deliberately turns and speaks to the jury in this case is because she stands accused of being a phony, that all of the allegations against Depp are simply one more performance by this actress. When she performs to perfectly here by your traditional standards, it reinforces the narrative that this professional performer is merely performing. If she was more imperfect, it would be more humanizing.
Additionally on the medical records. She is attempting to contribute scar tissue in her nose to abuse. However, she has admitted to using cocaine and other substances. Therefore the scarring and nose bleeds can be contributed to other factors. The medical records issue was discussed prior. She then states, I turned over 100's thousands of documents. to me no foundation has been laid to their relevance and lack of being in evidence, because this is the first instance I can recall of them being mentioned. In addition she tailored her medical records to only the ENT visit. There is no treatment listed or corrective procedures taken. In addition, it was shown that Amber had rhinoplasty performed at some point. The medical journal states; Scar tissue formation after rhinoplasty is a common occurrence and can take anywhere from several weeks to several months to form. The amount of time it takes for scar tissue to form depends on the type of skin you have, as well as the type of surgery that was performed.
Elaine asked a lot of sloppy questions.
Camilleâs strategy here is basically throw a sauced spaghetti to the wall and see what sticks. I get it.
"Who did you tell..." I would consider that a leading question. Elaine was basically giving the jury the information that Amber had told someone about her injuries before Amber informed the jury. Maybe Elaine should have started with "Did you tell anyone about your injuries"? "Yes, I did." "Who did you tell? "
How many people did you tell about âthe abuseâ is hearsay. The purpose of naming the individuals is to prove the truth of the abuse through statements she made.
I would love if you can return to this trial at least to react to Amberâs direct AND cross examination. đđŒđđŒđđŒ
Ugh lawyer at least know some of the context before this redirect
Interesting comment about eye contact with the jury!
It was definitely eye opening! (corny pun kind of intended)
@@LawVenture đđ slow clap for the pun đ
It's interesting to go back after reading the transcripts. Amber had constantly talked about Johnny punching her in the face wearing rings so much she had a split lip and "what felt like" a broken nose. Again no evidence but she tried to connect scar tissue in her nose to a beating. Year or two afterwards. Camille had shown Amber on a TV show the day after the "attack" , nothing, no split lip no broken nose. Amber said she covered it all with makeup. Elaine was grasping for anything. At one point Elaine told the Judge she was getting that information in one way or another! Judge was not happy. Throughout this trial Elaine was constantly disrespectful and the Judge even so tried her best to help her so there was a lot going on.
This entire case was bias and unprofessional.
I don't agree with your evaluation. It was Amber's false face and it annoyed the jury and the jurors said that afterwrds
Camille came out in an interview and said she actually felt bad for Elaine bc her teammates just let her flop so badly.
I watched this trial 3 times - live & twice on CZcams. She faces & talks to the jury like 98% of the time. She looks at the attorney for their question. It's like a tennis game. She has a different "complicated" hair style each day. If parts of her hair hang loose on purpose - it only hangs on the left side of her face so the Jury can see other side clearly when she faces them.
Dud U crazy. This is the correct objection. Let me explain. If I have issues valid issues I would get medical record to explain them. My physician would answer this question. Seriously I cannot breath and I put off surgery?????
Thank you for this video, I remember watching this thinking Camille Vasquez was just making up objections about hearsay but everyone was saying she was so great and I was really confused lol I was like do I just not understand hearsay lmao but I'm pretty sure I do.
Haha Iâm glad I could clarify!
Obviously the redirect attorney does not know the hearsay objections and actually the objecting attorney doesnât know them either because sheâs offering the wrong objections and not explaining why the ones that she is offering is applicable. Oh and the judge could also benefit from your cheat sheet
If the objecting attorney's goal was to just throw off the redirect attorney, then mission accomplished haha.
Camille Vasquez ran rings around Elaine Bredehoff - and managed to do it while remaining likeable to the jury and observers. It may not have always been the correct legal objection but it was a master class in swaying and controlling the narrative !
If you check out the side bars that are now available, they may clear some of it uoâ€
23:26 It's obvious she meant the same objection as before the question (improper expert opinion)
The medical ent records were dated about a year later after her divorce from depp. Itâs not relevant. The objection should have been objection relevance
Could some of medical record objections be best evidence rule?
IMHO the comments reflected the sub conscious thought that ber was " Acting" and I loved her role in AM but she comes off as a TERRIBLE witness.
I think they objected so much also because the objections were throwing off the lawyer.
They know if Amber cant talk and tell her story. She will get pissed, and true Amber will come out.
sorry... 10 months late... but did you watch the trial? seems like you weren't... 23 mins into the video, now i can confirm that you did not watch the trial and that you just hear half of the Elaine's questions and passed judgements... đ
I can't believe you didn't watch the actual trial and you're trying to give commentary from a lawyer's perspective, and you have no idea the context...that is so unprofessional.
Johnny's attorney was trying to confuse and break up any rhythm by Amber's attorney. Mission accomplished! If I was a juror, I would think Amber's attorney was crazy.
Interesting, I thought it was annoying that none of those questions could be answered because I was confused as well on many of the same ones. Depp's lawyer objected to every single thing, many got sustained. Less got overruled but it happened often enough that it came across as intentional and would break up the conversation.
Thank you
Did U say U an attorney????? Well Elaine is an attorney. I am done with youâll
Thatâs a great critique- but yikes!
As for her looking at the jury yes good advice, but her hair is pulled back her demeanor is very off putting her lawyer should have coached her better. As far as the hearsay objections the doctors or doctor was never presented and given the chance to give their qualifications and with no proof that's hearsay. Just saying
Dude. You really shouldâve watch the trial so you know why there are objections because your analysis is terrible.
I agree with your points, as a high school mock trial student we have been trained to ALWAYS look at the jury. We have been downgraded for not looking at the jury with our answers. Donât understand why people think itâs creepy - she is a bad person, but sheâs projecting to the jury and the jury is who she SHOULD be talking to.
â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€â€
They were all good objections because Amber is a LIAR !! I thought that back then when i watched the trial, and i think đŹ it now !! So did the jury.