for real though, let's say you're at the beach and you take a picture of your significant other on the pier with a crowd in the background, then somebody crops one person from the background out of the photo and asks "why did you photograph this person?" then the very question is flawed from the beginning
As a lawyer myself, I cannot imagine a more embarrassing situation than to have the judge accuse you of being misleading during the course of a trial. Chances are, the lawyer will appear before this judge again in the future and from this point on the judge will always question the integrity of the attorney. In an effort to win one trial, it is not worth it to risk your professional reputation.
Oh the lawyer knows she was trying to mislead the witness by cropping the picture with no relevant info in it therefore trying too make the witness believe he took the cropped picture when infact he didn't.
Calls the judge "sir." Any lawyer should know that you refer to a judge as Judge or Your Honor, preferably the latter. He's too flabbergasted to even mind that, but yeah she's quite the spring cookie.
The picture in question wasent even the murder scene. It was stupid to even bring it up. This witness must of been at the scene and was shown pictures of the murder scene, they were there......So what could of been the question asked for that inperticular picture? Huh (did you see the blood? Splater? Did it look like the?) Sooo this is what you saw......Come on.....remember the oj trial......
That judge sees right through that lawyers bull. You can’t ask that question in a different way because he used them all. She knew what he meant and skirted around trying to avoid it. I want a judge like that because I know I won’t get twisted up.
All the witness had to say is something like "yes I took that picture but it appears it has been cropped since I did not zoom in on the section that appears in the picture". What the hell is the big deal? Cropping is part of normal photography.
You are assuming that out of a much larger picture that somehow the photographer would be able to recognize something that wasn't even part of the intended photo and was only there by happenstance. On your way in to work, I want you to describe the colors of all the vehicles that you passed on the way there and the order that you passed them. You can't. So does that mean you didn't pass any cars on the way to work? And that is why the judge is having issues with the lawyer's questions.
I think it’s reprehensible that the ‘impartial’ judge is doing the prosecutions job for them. If the defense wants to hold up a Sunday morning paper and ask a detective why he drew popeye they have that right. They can ask any leading question they want. The defense can object but really it’s on the witness to give a truthful answer. I’m no lawyer but it seems fair to me.
I agree with her. The judge never even let her finish saying what the defendant was even asked, relating to the cropped image. The state did the same thing with another picture, as she stated.
That would explain why the defense thought the prosecution's photo was cropped. A lot of it is the intent, the prosecutor was probably just printing it from his office printer. Probably used the default Microsoft settings lol. Otherwise you could argue, for example, that the office printer did not have the same color palette as the original image or negative. On the other hand the defense did a MS paint job to wreck the image, in order to create false evidence that the police were dumb.
Nellie G. Cabo I think the point here is that she presented the cropped (altered) photo as an un-altered photo in its original form, which according to the judge, was done specifically to mislead the witness, the jury, and the court. Had she presented it as a blown-up, cropped (altered) image, it would not have been considered misleading. That's the way I understand it anyway.
I'm surprised that the judge was unable to ask his question clearly. His composite questions "Did you do X in order to achieve Y" was a sloppy question. He really needed to break his thoughts and questions down more clearly.
This isn't tampering with evidence. You are allowed to crop, enhance, or blow up photos. The issue is that a portion of the photo was blown up and separated from the rest of the picture, then they asked the person that took the photo why did he photograph this, while excluding the fact that he didn't photograph that but it was a part of what he was photographing. Another way to look at it is, lets say you took a picture of your friend at an amusement park, but someone saw that and photobombed with them flipping the bird. Later your friend sees this, blows up the picture and only shows the person flipping the bird, then asks you, why did you take a picture of the person flipping the bird. It should have been brought to attention that this isn't the original photo in full context, then asked if he was aware that was present in the image when he took the picture. But not including that, they are stating that the photographer took that picture, as shown, therefore had some intention behind it; also expecting him to recognize it out of context.
I guess we'd have to see her questions to the witness to determine if she misled the witness. In a sense, I'm guessing it was a blow up of a picture the witness had taken, therefore it was still taken by that person. We would have to see the context to find out if she asked why it was taken of something up close, when in fact it wasn't.
It's altered evidence for the purpose of misleading. In debate terms, it's a strawman. The only reason to do something like that is to entice a specific response. I'm not certain what this case was but I don't see a good reason to omit sections of a photograph. People's delicate sensibilities are not a good reason in Court. Kudos to this judge.
There are plenty of reasons to omit sections of a photo. But when inquiring about why the photo was taken, it has to be noted that they are asking about a part of a different photo, the photographer may need the whole picture to be able to answer.
The prosecutor screwed the pooch in closing argument: The defendant was charged with the June 2005 first degree premeditated murder of her mother. The jury convicted her of second degree murder after a trial in which the evidence was entirely circumstantial. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed her conviction and sentence, although the judges on the Panel were not unanimous as to the rationale for the decision. We granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal. We hold that the lead prosecutor’s remark during final closing argument at trial amounted to a constitutionally impermissible comment upon the defendant’s exercise of her state and federal constitutional right to remain silent and not testify. We also hold that the prosecution violated the defendant’s constitutional right to due process by failing to turn over until after trial the third statement a key witness gave to law enforcement officers investigating the murder. The State has failed to establish that these constitutional errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we vacate the defendant’s conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.
I wanna see what happens next. The Attorney was lying, and then she compounded the lie by accusing the Prosecution of doing the same thing. The Judge should have nailed her ass to the floor on that lie as weil. The 1st video shows the Attorney's bad intent by how she attempts to "reframe" the issue to the question, and avoids the direct question of the photo itself. Lawyers are sometimes stupid, but this level of stupidity requires dishonesty to explain it.
I hope the defense counsel was disbarred soon after her fraudulent act. I praise the judge for being diligent, not like the honorable crooks who systematically endorse unlawful conduct.
The defense is absolutely out of line. If this had been a federal case; I know the federal rules of evidence explicitly prohibit this type of concealment. I'm not sure what the local rules are in this court jurisdiction, but withholding a part of a document or evidence is absolutely not in the interest of justice. Generally, any document offered into evidence, must be complete, and include any and all other related documents and writings that are part of a document.
Usually you are required to show whatever you are going to show to a witness to your opponent first, so they can object before the witness is ever shown it... unless it was already admitted into evidence (which doesn't appear to be the case here). Even if it is just being used to refresh the witnesses recollection (as opposed to admitted) you are supposed to show it to the other side first... If she did what the judge is implying, it wouldn't border on being unethical - it was unethical... From what I can gather, looks as if she should be reprimanded by her state bar.
So how did all of this play out? Did the prosecution get the point across to the attorney? Did it make a difference? Was the woman sanctioned or did she receive any repercussions for this behavior? Was a mistrial declared?
They do what they want when they want to do it. I thank this judge for asking the questions he asked. I just hope he holds the state to the same standerds as he does the accused, Also I hope that no person in law enforcement ever turn a blind eye to their fellow colleagues, Like a minority of the police force do when crimes are commited agenst poor minoritys in the united states.
This goes to show you that everyone is human and that everybody makes mistakes rather they were done deliberately or accidental, we do know this, owe to what have done, and if you have to go through pain to prove your innocents is the path which many people go through just do it. But once the innocents were proven now its gone rather the misleading of defense or the over-representation from the DA shows the true errors of a human
appears to me as a rookie mistake, I don't think she knew she was doing anything wrong. Not sure how much experience she has and this is a murder case but it seems to me that a rookie should be somewhat forgiven for making this kind of mistake.
The fact that she kept dodging the question, rerouting it, and then tried to pass the blame by saying, but they did it first, shows, she knew what she was doing. If you make a mistake in court, you just say that you messed up, take notes, don't do it again, and apologize. That is why you may hear in some cases a lawyer say, "To the jury, I wish to clarify..." the say what they did, what may have been wrong with it, and then may even go back over that part of the case with the other parties so that correct results are given.
Reality is shifting beneath your very own feet: what we have been taught about the righteousness of the Left or Right, Democrats or Republicans, this 'wing,' or that 'wing,' and we do not reflect the innate and basic social realities that are taking place before our own eyes. In my 71 years, based on my experience and the questions I have asked, and my eyes have see, we have been deluded over and over, from the day we were borne. See my past comments. When confronting attorneys in private and putting hard questions to them, often in confidence, many have said there is no real freedom, anywhere, in any party --- that they are in control and they hold allegiance to no one but their Bar Association cabal. Right out of Orwell's 1984, but only worse and complete. This: because all "isms" are under the evil rule of the "Humans." Humans that glorify every evil act they do as good and pure: it won't change, and we won't challenge it unless we see the real "enemy." We will continue to form "clubs" (social and physical) --- and expound those clubs --- with power and greed and evil to be used as 'clubs' against each other --- until this final Truth becomes too evident to deny. Keep in mind that Fears doesn't prevent Death, it prevent Life, knowing what is right doesn't' mean that much until you do the right things. Drawing on one of the classical social theorist Georg Simmel’s work on Metropolis and Mental Life, Berlant explored the concept of ‘disassociation’. Her ability to communicate with a wide range of academics using complex and imaginative frameworks of analysis is inspiring both on pedagogical and substantive issues. Other keynotes included Professor Jane Speedy, University of Bristol and Associate Professor Joyce Davidson, Queens University, Canada. This was a conference which not only provided outstanding networking opportunities and an opportunity to develop research synergies with international and national delegates, but in addition it was a great opportunity for me to reflect on a chapter I have just completed on Lauren Berlant’s work for my upcoming book, Genealogies of Emotion, Intimacies and Desire (Routledge, New York 2015). More food for thought from this exceptional academic. This was a conference to inspire the intellect, engage the senses, to enrich international networking and to light the way for doctoral, postdoctoral and early career researchers on the best of interdisciplinary research and to showcase this on the world stage. Cheri Safapou 17 hours ago Sacramento (and Marin, and San Francisco ) Family Court parents who can't afford a lawyer report that opposing attorneys and their clients routinely commit perjury in court filings and at court hearings. Sacramento, Marin, and San Francisco family County judges ignore perjurious, demonstrably false testimony by lawyers who also work as part-time judges in the same court. This video reveals that there is no enforcement of perjury law in Sacramento and Marin and San Francisco and throughout the state. I have learned that people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care, I applaud Topeka Community Conversation on Poverty #TCOP and the Community for being the power within ourselves to affect true change in a society filled with injustice, bigotry, and disposable people. Therefore it is with respect, I comment on Washburn Review Article " Domestic violence discussed at Topeka Community Conversation on Poverty". However, misinformation like this is more dangerous than no information at all. 1. Domestic Violence IS a gender based crime. 2. The majority of the homeless and poverty-stricken population is Battered Mothers and her children. [The mentally ill make up the second greatest population] 3. Domestic Violence is NOT a mental illness - it is a crime of Power and Control, Entitlement and Belief systems. It is not just the violence, rather a stripping of “autonomy” a basic human right. See Evan Stark, Coercive Control. “…the domestic violence revolution is stalled…” (Stark, 2007) “That the singular focus on violence against women masks an even more devastating reality. In millions of abusive relationships, men use a largely unidentified form of subjugation that more closely resembles kidnapping or indentured servitude than assault.” (Stark, 2007) Until it is acknowledged as the human rights violation it is (and deemed so by the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, finding the USA has violated those Human Rights (IACHR 2013 RE: Gonzalez v Castle Rock Police Dept. and Gonzales v USA, IACHR). Domestic Violence does NOT need to be “treated” it needs full enforcement of and criminal prosecution under the law as any other person crime is. There must be a clear separation of crime and therapy. Therapeutic Jurisprudence has infiltrated all aspects of this violent and human rights crime against persons, turning it into a “let’s treat the perpetrator” which in turns creates a plethora of “cottage industries for profit” and further denies, the targeted population’s access to Justice and “Equal Protection under the law”. Domestic Violence demands a community’s response of intolerance to said crime. Until the community takes responsibility [as clearly TCOP is doing - BRAVO] and then demands accountability and protection for ALL - Domestic Violence has been and thus remains - an acceptable “societal -norm”. [Values and beliefs]. Prosecute the Crime in a Criminal Court of Law. 1 Evan Stark, Coercive Control. 2007 “…the domestic violence revolution is stalled… “ “Men use coercive control to extend their dominance over time and through social space in ways that subvert women’s autonomy, isolate them, and infiltrate the most intimate corners of their lives. "the events in my life do not make me who i am. But my accomplishments, in spite of them, are what truly define me." Benjamin lee Just like us, Justice is coming, San Francisco: A string of court corruption scandals in California - including a ticket fixing scheme uncovered by the FBI in Orange County and an alleged racketeering organization in Sacramento County - are the result of mismanagement and incompetence at the state Judicial Council, according to a report by a non-profit journalism organization. With an annual budget of over $3 billion, Judicial Council responsibilities include oversight and accountability for California courts. In it's report, the non-profit Sacramento Family Court News organization cataloged a list of Judicial Branch controversies that whistleblowers attribute to ineffective leadership by Judicial Council Chair and Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. "Under the leadership of Cantil-Sakauye, the Judicial Council has been besieged by controversy, including a scathing state audit showing financial and operational mismanagement, and allegations by the Center for Judicial Excellence that the agency ignores criminal conduct by court clerks and judges throughout the state," SFCN reported. The video posted with this iReport records the start of the first Judicial Council protest by the Center for Judicial Excellence "Stop Court Crimes" campaign. CJE has held ongoing protests at subsequent Judicial Council public meetings throughout 2015. "Mismanagement of the agency by Cantil-Sakauye - a former Sacramento County criminal prosecutor with no formal education in public policy and administration - is so consistently inept that a dedicated website, Judicial Council Watcher, tracks and reports the seemingly endless stream of problems and scandals," SFCN reported. The report includes accounts by two court employee whistleblowers who were fired for exposing serial violations of state law by their coworkers in the Sacramento and Nevada County Superior Court systems. Court watchdogs also charge the Judicial Council chief with cronyism and protecting her former coworkers in Sacramento Superior Court and the adjacent 3rd District Court of Appeal. Severe corruption problems, including an alleged RICO racketeering enterprise, have been documented in the two court systems. Cherie Safapou 1 week ago Roosevelt said, "One's dignity maybe assaulted, vandalized and cruelly mocked, but it can never be taken away unless it is surrendered knowing what's right doesn't mean much unless you do what's right" Terroristic divorce czcams.com/video/OAHgqW_lyEM/video.html
As a photographer I can tell you that she is correct about the prosecution also to a certain extent. It doesn't sound like they did it on purpose but when you change a 4 x 6 to an 8 x 10 you do lose part of the photo. It would have to be enlarged to an 8 x 12 to maintain the complete image. That could be easily proven had somebody printed out the original 4 x 6. Then you could see what was missing.
Not if you only enlarge it until the length is met and just have larger lengthwise borders. Same as choosing whether or not to crop a video or watch with black bars, you can still watch it on a screen with a different aspect ratio without cropping.
You're talking about a crop to the periphery of the photo due to a change in aspect ratio which would be the case with borderless prints. What the defence attorney did here was to take an extreme crop of part of the picture which omitted the main subject matter of the picture, she then asked the witness why they took that specific photo and showed the photo to the jury. It was to make it look as though some blotches that were visible in the cropped enlargement were in fact blood splatter that was deliberately photographed as evidence. Part 1 sheds a little more light on this.
Is this women the prosecutor? She IS on the side closest to the jury, so I'd think so. Here in Connecticut, mostly, the prosecution is on the right - or plaintiff. I notice more and more many other courts and or States are different.. it's really on a court by court basis, but still.
1:58 um yeah, the state is the accuser, they have a higher standard. The defense can do things they state cannot. idiot attorney. I actually like this judge. I will use his argument in my case (edited video)
Wonderful to see such a diligent judge. Such an outrageous thing for the lawyer to do.
for real though, let's say you're at the beach and you take a picture of your significant other on the pier with a crowd in the background, then somebody crops one person from the background out of the photo and asks "why did you photograph this person?" then the very question is flawed from the beginning
I’m not understanding
Yeah i dont get it
Good catch judge.
Good for that Judge. That's something that takes serious consideration to notice and lay out what the intent was.
As a lawyer myself, I cannot imagine a more embarrassing situation than to have the judge accuse you of being misleading during the course of a trial. Chances are, the lawyer will appear before this judge again in the future and from this point on the judge will always question the integrity of the attorney. In an effort to win one trial, it is not worth it to risk your professional reputation.
part 3: "Did you take this photo?"
Witness: "Yes"
lmao
Lol
Imagine
My reaction is the same as the baliff at 1:45
Oh the lawyer knows she was trying to mislead the witness by cropping the picture with no relevant info in it therefore trying too make the witness believe he took the cropped picture when infact he didn't.
Calls the judge "sir." Any lawyer should know that you refer to a judge as Judge or Your Honor, preferably the latter. He's too flabbergasted to even mind that, but yeah she's quite the spring cookie.
that lawyer has such a snotty attitude, she better check herself
Check ya self, counselor.
Haha, awesome! This judge was my adjunct professor for Trial Advocacy!
I find it funny how she admitted to altering the photo
Imagine Part 3 is the witness saying i did take that picture
1:50 Bailiff be like: mmmhmmm bitch smh
Long live this Judge!! This Judge is a hero for Justice.
where's the full video? this shit is good
Ha, she isn't dumb. In fact she had a response prepared in case this was brought up (saying the state had done the same thing)
That was even dumber lol, she literally tried to blame the state when she knows they didn't do nothing.
She should be charged with obstruction of justice,,,, she clearly was trying to pull a fast one !!!
lawyer earning the hate they get
a real judge
I can't believe she's arguing with the judge.
He confused her with cropped he should have asked her if it was the original pic taken
Daaamn, this judge saw RIGHT trough the bullshit. Props to him.
The picture in question wasent even the murder scene. It was stupid to even bring it up. This witness must of been at the scene and was shown pictures of the murder scene, they were there......So what could of been the question asked for that inperticular picture? Huh (did you see the blood? Splater? Did it look like the?) Sooo this is what you saw......Come on.....remember the oj trial......
Boom goes the Dynamite. ..
Watch her face. She's so obviously being deceitful.
That judge sees right through that lawyers bull. You can’t ask that question in a different way because he used them all. She knew what he meant and skirted around trying to avoid it. I want a judge like that because I know I won’t get twisted up.
the heading would be better as deceitful lawyer...
that is so disturbing lying lawyers gone wild!
All the witness had to say is something like "yes I took that picture but it appears it has been cropped since I did not zoom in on the section that appears in the picture". What the hell is the big deal? Cropping is part of normal photography.
You are assuming that out of a much larger picture that somehow the photographer would be able to recognize something that wasn't even part of the intended photo and was only there by happenstance.
On your way in to work, I want you to describe the colors of all the vehicles that you passed on the way there and the order that you passed them. You can't. So does that mean you didn't pass any cars on the way to work?
And that is why the judge is having issues with the lawyer's questions.
I think it’s reprehensible that the ‘impartial’ judge is doing the prosecutions job for them. If the defense wants to hold up a Sunday morning paper and ask a detective why he drew popeye they have that right. They can ask any leading question they want. The defense can object but really it’s on the witness to give a truthful answer.
I’m no lawyer but it seems fair to me.
I’d rather die broke without a penny before I ever hurt my mom for some inheritance money
I agree with her. The judge never even let her finish saying what the defendant was even asked, relating to the cropped image. The state did the same thing with another picture, as she stated.
An 8x10 is already cropped during normal printing by 2 inches. If you don't want it cropped, you print an 8x12.
That would explain why the defense thought the prosecution's photo was cropped. A lot of it is the intent, the prosecutor was probably just printing it from his office printer. Probably used the default Microsoft settings lol. Otherwise you could argue, for example, that the office printer did not have the same color palette as the original image or negative.
On the other hand the defense did a MS paint job to wreck the image, in order to create false evidence that the police were dumb.
Not dumb, more like deceitful.
Ugh. She'll never forget this one.
Desperate defense.
Can you dismiss this attorney and request a new one?If not,Guilty sentence is in the air.
Nellie G. Cabo I think the point here is that she presented the cropped (altered) photo as an un-altered photo in its original form, which according to the judge, was done specifically to mislead the witness, the jury, and the court. Had she presented it as a blown-up, cropped (altered) image, it would not have been considered misleading.
That's the way I understand it anyway.
I'm surprised that the judge was unable to ask his question clearly. His composite questions "Did you do X in order to achieve Y" was a sloppy question. He really needed to break his thoughts and questions down more clearly.
please tell me there's a part 3.
Yes, I hope so!
Lock up that lady lawyer in jail.
In my opinion, people who stick up for bad guys are bad guys in training.
Demand the original pictures.
Yup - bag of hammers - dumb as a bag of hammers - 😆
Cropping photographs is the cornerstone of good photography
Not when they're evidence in a trial. In which case cropping is known as evidence tampering.
She finally admitted to it. Good.
Great admiration for this judge!
Well tampering with evidence is a criminal offense.
This isn't tampering with evidence. You are allowed to crop, enhance, or blow up photos. The issue is that a portion of the photo was blown up and separated from the rest of the picture, then they asked the person that took the photo why did he photograph this, while excluding the fact that he didn't photograph that but it was a part of what he was photographing.
Another way to look at it is, lets say you took a picture of your friend at an amusement park, but someone saw that and photobombed with them flipping the bird. Later your friend sees this, blows up the picture and only shows the person flipping the bird, then asks you, why did you take a picture of the person flipping the bird.
It should have been brought to attention that this isn't the original photo in full context, then asked if he was aware that was present in the image when he took the picture. But not including that, they are stating that the photographer took that picture, as shown, therefore had some intention behind it; also expecting him to recognize it out of context.
Wow that lady lawyer doesn't seem to like being caught.
I guess we'd have to see her questions to the witness to determine if she misled the witness. In a sense, I'm guessing it was a blow up of a picture the witness had taken, therefore it was still taken by that person. We would have to see the context to find out if she asked why it was taken of something up close, when in fact it wasn't.
Good judgement by a good judge
I see, thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea
I BET SHE IS A PUBLIC DEFENDER...
Criminal not just unethical.
It's altered evidence for the purpose of misleading.
In debate terms, it's a strawman.
The only reason to do something like that is to entice a specific response.
I'm not certain what this case was but I don't see a good reason to omit sections of a photograph. People's delicate sensibilities are not a good reason in Court.
Kudos to this judge.
There are plenty of reasons to omit sections of a photo. But when inquiring about why the photo was taken, it has to be noted that they are asking about a part of a different photo, the photographer may need the whole picture to be able to answer.
Good Lord, usually on the District Attorney's Office will do things like this.
The "they did it first" defense isn't worthy of a court.
The prosecutor screwed the pooch in closing argument:
The defendant was charged with the June 2005 first degree premeditated murder of her mother. The jury convicted her of second degree murder after a trial in which the evidence was entirely circumstantial. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed her conviction and sentence, although the judges on the Panel were not unanimous as to the rationale for the decision. We granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal. We hold that the lead prosecutor’s remark during final closing argument at trial amounted to a constitutionally impermissible comment upon the defendant’s exercise of her state and federal constitutional right to remain silent and not testify. We also hold that the prosecution violated the defendant’s constitutional right to due process by failing to turn over until after trial the third statement a key witness gave to law enforcement officers investigating the murder. The State has failed to establish that these constitutional errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we vacate the defendant’s conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.
I wanna see what happens next. The Attorney was lying, and then she compounded the lie by accusing the Prosecution of doing the same thing. The Judge should have nailed her ass to the floor on that lie as weil. The 1st video shows the Attorney's bad intent by how she attempts to "reframe" the issue to the question, and avoids the direct question of the photo itself. Lawyers are sometimes stupid, but this level of stupidity requires dishonesty to explain it.
I hope the defense counsel was disbarred soon after her fraudulent act. I praise the judge for being diligent, not like the honorable crooks who systematically endorse unlawful conduct.
The defense is absolutely out of line. If this had been a federal case; I know the federal rules of evidence explicitly prohibit this type of concealment. I'm not sure what the local rules are in this court jurisdiction, but withholding a part of a document or evidence is absolutely not in the interest of justice. Generally, any document offered into evidence, must be complete, and include any and all other related documents and writings that are part of a document.
It was the prosecuting attorney, not the defendants attorney.
Judge 1 - Lawyer 0
My God. Speechless.
Usually you are required to show whatever you are going to show to a witness to your opponent first, so they can object before the witness is ever shown it... unless it was already admitted into evidence (which doesn't appear to be the case here). Even if it is just being used to refresh the witnesses recollection (as opposed to admitted) you are supposed to show it to the other side first...
If she did what the judge is implying, it wouldn't border on being unethical - it was unethical... From what I can gather, looks as if she should be reprimanded by her state bar.
Im confused af all pictures need blew up and cropped if thats evidence???
Caught nowhere to hide.
Hard even to come up with the superlatives to describe her level of intelligence.
1:48 "also!?" Which is admitting that she also knew about photo cropping, when denying that previously... *BUSTED*
I like this lawyer
How invested can you be in a case that you risk being disbarred or prosecuted just to make some small gains in it?
Really, you're surprised an attorney did something unethical?
Great judge
She just did the "but they did first" bs, and was wrong. I'm curious if there was follow up on this issue w the state.
So how did all of this play out? Did the prosecution get the point across to the attorney? Did it make a difference? Was the woman sanctioned or did she receive any repercussions for this behavior? Was a mistrial declared?
The judge could have simply asked, "Did someone on the defense team crop this photograph?" Otherwise I like what this judge is doing.
He knows that photo was cropped. He was asking more, did they omit the fact it was altered when questioning the photographer on purpose.
Criminal system, enough said.
As a manner of fackt, a ferry smart lawyer!
was about to make that comment just goes to show you the judge works for the prosecutor
A Lawyer that lies !!!!.........Nooooooooo, that would never happen. They are as honest as Politicians.
They do what they want when they want to do it. I thank this judge for asking the questions he asked. I just hope he holds the state to the same standerds as he does the accused, Also I hope that no person in law enforcement ever turn a blind eye to their fellow colleagues, Like a minority of the police force do when crimes are commited agenst poor minoritys in the united states.
Judge is corrupt af
This goes to show you that everyone is human and that everybody makes mistakes rather they were done deliberately or accidental, we do know this, owe to what have done, and if you have to go through pain to prove your innocents is the path which many people go through just do it. But once the innocents were proven now its gone rather the misleading of defense or the over-representation from the DA shows the true errors of a human
lawyer isn't dumb, its malicious and immoral
You go judge
Question is irrelevant, nothing was proved here
Owned
appears to me as a rookie mistake, I don't think she knew she was doing anything wrong. Not sure how much experience she has and this is a murder case but it seems to me that a rookie should be somewhat forgiven for making this kind of mistake.
The fact that she kept dodging the question, rerouting it, and then tried to pass the blame by saying, but they did it first, shows, she knew what she was doing. If you make a mistake in court, you just say that you messed up, take notes, don't do it again, and apologize.
That is why you may hear in some cases a lawyer say, "To the jury, I wish to clarify..." the say what they did, what may have been wrong with it, and then may even go back over that part of the case with the other parties so that correct results are given.
Reality is shifting beneath your very own feet: what we have been taught about the righteousness of the Left or Right, Democrats or Republicans, this 'wing,' or that 'wing,' and we do not reflect the innate and basic social realities that are taking place before our own eyes. In my 71 years, based on my experience and the questions I have asked, and my eyes have see, we have been deluded over and over, from the day we were borne. See my past comments. When confronting attorneys in private and putting hard questions to them, often in confidence, many have said there is no real freedom, anywhere, in any party --- that they are in control and they hold allegiance to no one but their Bar Association cabal. Right out of Orwell's 1984, but only worse and complete. This: because all "isms" are under the evil rule of the "Humans." Humans that glorify every evil act they do as good and pure: it won't change, and we won't challenge it unless we see the real "enemy." We will continue to form "clubs" (social and physical) --- and expound those clubs --- with power and greed and evil to be used as 'clubs' against each other --- until this final Truth becomes too evident to deny.
Keep in mind that Fears doesn't prevent Death, it prevent Life, knowing what is right doesn't' mean that much until you do the right things.
Drawing on one of the classical social theorist Georg Simmel’s work on Metropolis and Mental Life, Berlant explored the concept of ‘disassociation’. Her ability to communicate with a wide range of academics using complex and imaginative frameworks of analysis is inspiring both on pedagogical and substantive issues.
Other keynotes included Professor Jane Speedy, University of Bristol and Associate Professor Joyce Davidson, Queens University, Canada.
This was a conference which not only provided outstanding networking opportunities and an opportunity to develop research synergies with international and national delegates, but in addition it was a great opportunity for me to reflect on a chapter I have just completed on Lauren Berlant’s work for my upcoming book, Genealogies of Emotion, Intimacies and Desire (Routledge, New York 2015). More food for thought from this exceptional academic.
This was a conference to inspire the intellect, engage the senses, to enrich international networking and to light the way for doctoral, postdoctoral and early career researchers on the best of interdisciplinary research and to showcase this on the world stage.
Cheri Safapou 17 hours ago
Sacramento (and Marin, and San Francisco ) Family Court parents who can't afford a lawyer report that opposing attorneys and their clients routinely commit perjury in court filings and at court hearings. Sacramento, Marin, and San Francisco family County judges ignore perjurious, demonstrably false testimony by lawyers who also work as part-time judges in the same court. This video reveals that there is no enforcement of perjury law in Sacramento and Marin and San Francisco and throughout the state.
I have learned that people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care, I applaud Topeka Community Conversation on Poverty #TCOP and the Community for being the power within ourselves to affect true change in a society filled with injustice, bigotry, and disposable people.
Therefore it is with respect, I comment on Washburn Review Article " Domestic violence discussed at Topeka Community Conversation on Poverty".
However, misinformation like this is more dangerous than no information at all.
1. Domestic Violence IS a gender based crime.
2. The majority of the homeless and poverty-stricken population is Battered Mothers and her children. [The mentally ill make up the second greatest population]
3. Domestic Violence is NOT a mental illness - it is a crime of Power and Control, Entitlement and Belief systems. It is not just the violence, rather a stripping of “autonomy” a basic human right. See Evan Stark, Coercive Control. “…the domestic violence revolution is stalled…” (Stark, 2007)
“That the singular focus on violence against women masks an even more devastating reality. In millions of abusive relationships, men use a largely unidentified form of subjugation that more closely resembles kidnapping or indentured servitude than assault.” (Stark, 2007)
Until it is acknowledged as the human rights violation it is (and deemed so by the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, finding the USA has violated those Human Rights (IACHR 2013 RE: Gonzalez v Castle Rock Police Dept. and Gonzales v USA, IACHR). Domestic Violence does NOT need to be “treated” it needs full enforcement of and criminal prosecution under the law as any other person crime is.
There must be a clear separation of crime and therapy. Therapeutic Jurisprudence has infiltrated all aspects of this violent and human rights crime against persons, turning it into a “let’s treat the perpetrator” which in turns creates a plethora of “cottage industries for profit” and further denies, the targeted population’s access to Justice and “Equal Protection under the law”.
Domestic Violence demands a community’s response of intolerance to said crime. Until the community takes responsibility [as clearly TCOP is doing - BRAVO] and then demands accountability and protection for ALL - Domestic Violence has been and thus remains - an acceptable “societal -norm”. [Values and beliefs].
Prosecute the Crime in a Criminal Court of Law.
1 Evan Stark, Coercive Control. 2007 “…the domestic violence revolution is stalled… “
“Men use coercive control to extend their dominance over time and through social space in ways that subvert women’s autonomy, isolate them, and infiltrate the most intimate corners of their lives. "the events in my life do not make me who i am. But my accomplishments, in spite of them, are what truly define me." Benjamin lee Just like us, Justice is coming, San Francisco: A string of court corruption scandals in California - including a ticket fixing scheme uncovered by the FBI in Orange County and an alleged racketeering organization in Sacramento County - are the result of mismanagement and incompetence at the state Judicial Council, according to a report by a non-profit journalism organization.
With an annual budget of over $3 billion, Judicial Council responsibilities include oversight and accountability for California courts.
In it's report, the non-profit Sacramento Family Court News organization cataloged a list of Judicial Branch controversies that whistleblowers attribute to ineffective leadership by Judicial Council Chair and Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.
"Under the leadership of Cantil-Sakauye, the Judicial Council has been besieged by controversy, including a scathing state audit showing financial and operational mismanagement, and allegations by the Center for Judicial Excellence that the agency ignores criminal conduct by court clerks and judges throughout the state," SFCN reported.
The video posted with this iReport records the start of the first Judicial Council protest by the Center for Judicial Excellence "Stop Court Crimes" campaign. CJE has held ongoing protests at subsequent Judicial Council public meetings throughout 2015.
"Mismanagement of the agency by Cantil-Sakauye - a former Sacramento County criminal prosecutor with no formal education in public policy and administration - is so consistently inept that a dedicated website, Judicial Council Watcher, tracks and reports the seemingly endless stream of problems and scandals," SFCN reported.
The report includes accounts by two court employee whistleblowers who were fired for exposing serial violations of state law by their coworkers in the Sacramento and Nevada County Superior Court systems.
Court watchdogs also charge the Judicial Council chief with cronyism and protecting her former coworkers in Sacramento Superior Court and the adjacent 3rd District Court of Appeal. Severe corruption problems, including an alleged RICO racketeering enterprise, have been documented in the two court systems.
Cherie Safapou 1 week ago
Roosevelt said, "One's dignity maybe assaulted, vandalized and cruelly mocked, but it can never be taken away unless it is surrendered knowing what's right doesn't mean much unless you do what's right"
Terroristic divorce czcams.com/video/OAHgqW_lyEM/video.html
was that the sign of the devil when he pointed in the first 5 secs?
What?
She cropped it.
As a photographer I can tell you that she is correct about the prosecution also to a certain extent. It doesn't sound like they did it on purpose but when you change a 4 x 6 to an 8 x 10 you do lose part of the photo. It would have to be enlarged to an 8 x 12 to maintain the complete image. That could be easily proven had somebody printed out the original 4 x 6. Then you could see what was missing.
If the image is enlarged digitally then isn't the shape of the pixel altered rather than actually loose information as when cropped?
+Mike Green The image can become blurry but you will also lose part of the image when you enlarge between those two sizes
Not if you only enlarge it until the length is met and just have larger lengthwise borders.
Same as choosing whether or not to crop a video or watch with black bars, you can still watch it on a screen with a different aspect ratio without cropping.
You're talking about a crop to the periphery of the photo due to a change in aspect ratio which would be the case with borderless prints. What the defence attorney did here was to take an extreme crop of part of the picture which omitted the main subject matter of the picture, she then asked the witness why they took that specific photo and showed the photo to the jury. It was to make it look as though some blotches that were visible in the cropped enlargement were in fact blood splatter that was deliberately photographed as evidence. Part 1 sheds a little more light on this.
Weasel photos from the folk who brought you weasel words.
Why is this in parts
anymore of this?
Where's part 3??
Trying to win by lies and deceit. Greed much?
Is this women the prosecutor? She IS on the side closest to the jury, so I'd think so. Here in Connecticut, mostly, the prosecution is on the right - or plaintiff. I notice more and more many other courts and or States are different.. it's really on a court by court basis, but still.
Oh my bad, that's not the jury box, that's the ..whatever it's called. lol
@@officergregorystevens5765 The Defence
So.. zooming in on a picture to see a clue is a crime? I don't get it .-.
Busted! Lol
1:58 um yeah, the state is the accuser, they have a higher standard. The defense can do things they state cannot. idiot attorney. I actually like this judge. I will use his argument in my case (edited video)