Deposing Crump, who it has been proven via the other recording was telling her what to say, is critical to discovery of the defense.
To deny deposition of that witness is a tragedy of justice which this whole thing has been. The judge and appellate court are actively PREVENTING deposition of a witness.
Crump is not any type of witness that is useful to MOM. Everything Crimp may have done is exposable thru other witness.
The only thing other witnesses can not state is why Crimp said/acted in a way. But the results of his actions are attackable and he does not get a chance to defend those actions. MOM has the advantage their because he can plant ideas of cause that will be hard to ignore/defend.
Even if Crump is not deposed, once W8 is on the stand, MOM can go over every word of the deposition and ask what she said and why.
Because Crump's words are there, her response to Crump can be attacked. She will not have the deposition in front of her and Crump can not object. Should the state object to the examination, MOM can point out the exact verbiage that she used before Crump interjected.
Any coaching will become revealed by her answers, given the amount that seems to exist.
She can not get away with a I do not remember, because her initial words can be read back to her.
Just like for the reason GZ should not get on the stand because of lawyers twisting words/responses (No offense DVC), she could be skewered. And the state
needs to put her up there on the stand to have any chance of making its case.
MOM just needs to draw the line of generating sympathy W8 by questioning harshly. He has to pull a Crimp by coaxing her through the teal story, not attacking her.
State will realize this, maybe try to have her act like a frighten grieving child to extract sympathy during questioning using a sob or crying break down.
)
Facebook
Twitter