Plaintiff's attorneys may want to check out the name below and call her to the stand in regards to the interoperability grant. They should ask her whether or not Meffert was speaking with Kim Fury Jennings about anything to do with cameras specifically regarding the interoperability grant:
Rebecca Grenn Queen
City of New Orleans
1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1150
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: (504) 304-8306
Fax: (504) 565-8074
11 comments:
So. Freaking. Awesome.
GO, AZ, GO!
There's irony in a comment Meffert made yesterday on the stand: "You've taken one huge apple and compared it to a small orange." He said that in reference to emails with Dell, yet the interoperability req you've got is for a Mac.
Man, you're awesome with the quick testimony-undercutting research.
Nicely done!
But, again, I must remind you that Meffert's lawyer says his client told the troof. So be sure to factor that into the whole chain of events.
She isn't on the witness list that was posted on the web so she can't be called.
she can be added.
Your post was like a blogging ninja move.
I'd feel sorry for him if I didn't have a mental movie of the people Mr. Holcomb said could have been saved by better communications systems playing in my head.
Great title. I have so got to agree with you. Ever since I sat down and listened to him get interviewed by Garland, I realized how completely full of shit he is.
Just confirmed this with the legal eagle that is my wife, she can be called as a rebuttal witness about testimony if evidence exists that testimony provided was either a lie, untrue, misleading, etc. It's never 100% but in this case she said they have pretty good odds of getting her on the stand. It's more difficult in the criminal trials to do this type of thing.
Granted, the State has to present it to the judge and get him to sign off on it with the defendants counsel present but I don't think that should be a problem in this case.
This judge has already denied several motions on the witness issue don't see her reversing herself. She isn't going to open that door up.
Why has the judge denied these motions if they are legal (he would not have grounds for appeal) and they would demonstrate that Meffert lied on the stand?
I don't get it.
OOOOOOOH! YOU GANGSTA!!
Post a Comment