Sunday, December 27, 2009

More on pre-trial motions...

Baker trial approaches: 97 witnesses subpoenaed; defense lawyer wants information about alleged girlfriend's deal to testify
Tommy Witherspoon

"Most of the pretrial motions filed last week by Danford are routine. However, in one, Baker is asking the judge to order prosecutors to reveal the details of any agreements they entered into to obtain the testimonies of witnesses, especially Bulls, Baker’s alleged former girlfriend.

Judge Matt Johnson granted Bulls testimonial immunity before her March 25 grand jury appearance, meaning nothing she said during her testimony could be used against her. Baker’s lawyers have been unsuccessful thus far in gaining access to a transcript of her grand jury testimony, after which Baker was indicted." (read more)


Anonymous said...

94 witnesses. Not much of a case?

Looking forward to real Justice said...

The prosecution must have a very, very weak case. Calling 97 witnesses sounds like the old "searching for a needle in a haystack" approach.

Pulling a legal stunt to keep Mr. and Mrs. Baker and Baker's daughters out of the courtroom is beyond the pale. We can assume the Dulin's will have seats right in front of the jury box along with an ample supply of tissues.

When this trial is over perhaps Baker will sue the Dulin family for defamation of character and get a court order denying them access to the young girls. That would be real justice for all the hurt they have caused the Bakers.

Shannon said...

I think they'd have the case sewn up with 1-5 key witnesses and experts. And they found the "needle in the haystack" a while back. The rest is just icing.

Don't assume anything. Most likely the Dulins are on the witness list as well.

When the trial is over, I don't think Baker will be in a position to sue for defamation of character. When you're guilty, it's not defamation. It's self-inflicted. And deserved.

Real justice is coming.

kelly said...

to looking forward to real justice: why aren't the baker's trying to shield Kensi and Grace. why would they want them in the courtroom???? Justice for all who seek the truth. And it isn't matt baker.

Anonymous said...

"Defamation" of character?? This would imply Matt Baker actually HAS character...and the evidence is to the contrary. EVIDENCE is the operative word.