| CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,661 Views) | |
| Baldo | Dec 3 2010, 11:44 AM Post #106 |
|
Walt is right about the law and I also suspect he is right about the newspaper's limited reporting of it. Despite that I think jurors do take that into consideration. Try as they may Durham's Poster Girl has blown her cover long ago. Trying to find someone who responded to a Durham jury summons who doesn't know about Crystal's lies is like trying to find Lubiano's book in Duke's Library. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 3 2010, 11:47 AM Post #107 |
|
Haha -- bravo Baldo!And your point is very well-taken. |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Dec 3 2010, 12:04 PM Post #108 |
|
I do believe that crystal will testify.....against herself. rofl Like any good practicing dancing sex worker, she just cant keep her mouth shut. |
![]() |
|
| Kerri P. | Dec 3 2010, 12:08 PM Post #109 |
|
I don't dare Comment.
|
![]() |
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Dec 3 2010, 12:17 PM Post #110 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
I agree chatham. I am sure her "handlers" have told her-she has to have her day in court. That's when she must bring up the way she has been treated because of who she is. Question? if she does open the door..... can she then be questioned about the frame? Or would the Judge overrule? WTVD just reported, they are still trying to get a jury. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 3 2010, 12:38 PM Post #111 |
|
Deleted User
|
Don't put it past Crusty to say that she suffers post traumatic stress brought on by those Duke boys. |
|
|
| Mason | Dec 3 2010, 12:52 PM Post #112 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. I have a hard time applying the rules .... I would think Crystal would be a Witness and the Accused in this case, using the NC legal parlance - assuming she takes the Stand, of course. As a Witness then: Rule 608. Evidence of character and conduct of witness. (a) Opinion and reputation evidence of character. – The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of reputation or opinion as provided in Rule 405(a), but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise. (b) Specific instances of conduct. – Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified. The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or by any other witness, does not operate as a waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters which relate only to credibility. (1983, c. 701, s. 1.) Rule 609. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime. (a) General rule. – For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a felony, or of a Class A1, Class 1, or Class 2 misdemeanor, shall be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record during cross-examination or thereafter. -- END -- The differentiation being not using previous crimes to say she is guilty, but by raising specific past behaviors to illustrate her lack of credibility as a witness. . |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 3 2010, 02:49 PM Post #113 |
|
One thing we know is that Crystal will contradict herself on the witness stand. It should be very easy to get get her to make contradictory statements. If I was cross-examining her, I would then start as follows. I would ask her what she got her college degree in -- hopefully she remembers that she got a BS degree in Criminal Psychology. So, then I would say "So, you know something about the law, since you have a degree in criminal psychology." Continuing "So, what do we call it when someone lies on the witness stand -- what's the technical term?" Hopefully she responds "perjury" Continuing, "Now, what if a person on the witness stand states something at one point in the testimony, but later makes a statement that totally contradicts an earlier statement. Would that be perjury?" (Might have to make up an example )Then proceed from there to have her make contradictory statements -- which she will -- point them out when she does so -- and then remind her that even by her own admission, that's perjury. For example, she has publicly said that she doesn't know who started the fire. It should be easy to get her trip over her own statements on that matter. Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 4 2010, 12:42 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 3 2010, 02:55 PM Post #114 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Why has your license been revoked three times, Ms. Mangum? . |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 3 2010, 02:58 PM Post #115 |
|
In addition, the prosecutor CAN use the fact that Crusty LIED about her identity when asked by the police when they first arrived on the scene. That is, even though they dropped the charge of identity theft, they can still used the fact that she lied to police about her identity. In addition to damaging her credibility, that may be the way the prosecutor can open the door to bring in the Duke case, since Crusty claims she lied about her identity because of her association with the Duke case. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 3 2010, 03:24 PM Post #116 |
|
Parts unknown
|
Edited by Mason, Dec 3 2010, 03:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 3 2010, 03:28 PM Post #117 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Her 2003 convictions for Stealing a Car and Trying to Run over a Cop should be Fair game - in establishing her lack of credibility as a witness. . Edited by Mason, Dec 3 2010, 03:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Dec 3 2010, 06:50 PM Post #118 |
|
If I were her defense attorney, the last thing I would do would be to have Crystal testify. If she is not a witness, then her past crimes cannot be brought up. Furthermore, when has Crystal gotten a story straight in the past? How many different accounts of the lacrosse party and aftermath did she give? She couldn't even handle the photoID session even after having been coached, picking 4 "attackers" instead of 3. The only way she can survive being a witness in the arson case is if the ADA who tries the case gives her a pass in questioning her-- and with this being Durham, that might happen. (An aggressive ADA woiuld tear her to shreds on the stand). |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 3 2010, 07:15 PM Post #119 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. She will claim that Duke reprogrammed traffic lights, called the DPD, and had produced a ray that shattered the windows and flattened the tires. She has been working lots of hours in Prep though. The Dream Team is bragging. Lots of Prep hours with a Lawyer that has a Harvard Law Degree. Tell the court you're indigent - and see if you (eventually) get a Lawyer with a Law Degree from Harvard. I've never seen that personally, but nothing but the Best for Crystal. . |
![]() |
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Dec 3 2010, 07:31 PM Post #120 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
iirc-This is her second lawyer. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |






Haha -- bravo Baldo!
)
3:33 AM Jul 11