Right to sue

It is everyone's right to sue someone for whatever reason. It is the Judge who decides if it is a frivilous (sic) or nusance suit. The state does not pay for the law suit - the person who files it pays.
I only know of one law suit in which a judge told the complainent to stop harrassing the respondent - that was an ex husband who kept suing his ex-wife for any little thing he could come up with.

Originally posted by wyatt


And just WHO do you think pays the judge, jury, bailiff, court clerk etc?

The money would be accessed from the county's budget.

Which, of course, is filled with money collected from taxes paid by the people residing in said county.

IMO.

Originally posted by dan4081


Of course the Rochas would have to pay for some of it also. There are fees involved in bringing a civil case to court. It is different in all states. (It may come out of the judgement if any)

True that.

Originally posted by Land Shark® [*]

The money would be accessed from the county's budget.

Which, of course, is filled with money collected from taxes paid by the people residing in said county.

IMO. [/*]

What does the plaintiff pay?

Originally posted by dan4081 [*]

Of course the Rochas would have to pay for some of it also. There are fees involved in bringing a civil case to court. It is different in all states. (It may come out of the judgement if any) [/*]

If the Rochas get a judgement of 50 million, how much would they pay. (Assuming Scott never gives them a dime.)

Originally posted by dan4081 [*]

No idea. I do know it costs money to bring a civil case to court. I also know that there are different fees in some counties if there is a jury involved compared to if a judge will be ruling, some counties charge more if a sheriff is needed, etc etc.

They kind of nickel and dime ya for each little thing..... [/*]

Do the witnesses get paid? I'm thinking of Amber Frey testifying for two weeks or perhaps a coroner for a few days.

Originally posted by holiday [*] I thought only real experts get paid. AF doens't fall in that category.

[/*]

Does that mean the witnesses must disrupt their lives and go to court where ever it is for however long it takes?

Paid witnesses. Who are not experts in any field.

Now that's rich.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by Luke Davis [*]Does that mean the witnesses must disrupt their lives and go to court where ever it is for however long it takes? [/*]

In a word, yes.

Or so I've been told.

Originally posted by Luke Davis [*]What does the plaintiff pay? [/*]

You have to pay to file a case. I don't know the amount, but you pay anytime you file anything with the court.

Originally posted by Anakerie [*]

In a word, yes.

Or so I've been told. [/*]

Sometimes witnesses can testify via phone I believe

[Katprint]

Ordinary non-expert witnesses in California are paid the princely sum [/sarcasm] of $35 per day plus 20 cents per mile.
http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/382.htm

This cost, like the other court costs for filing fees, process servers, court reporters, jury fees, etc. are initially paid by the parties but then the winning party is reimbursed by the losing party for their court costs (except generally not attorneys fees unless the lawsuit arises from a contract or civil rights law containing an attorneys fees clause.)

As to whether witnesses can testify by telephone: I have seen the court allow this in small claims court and family law mediations, but I have successfully objected to it in regular civil litigation (because the jury needs to be able to judge the demeanor of the witness for credibility purposes and because the attorneys need to be able to show things to the witness to question them about those things) and I have never even seen anyone ask for it in criminal court. Attorneys can appear by telephone at status conferences and similar hearings; perhaps that is what earth goddess was thinking of.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Originally posted by holiday [*]Don't you watch trials? What witness are you referring to? [/*]

I have watched a few trials but not a wrongful death civil suit of a convicted double murderer.

Cyril Wecht
Henry Lee
Amber Frey
Charles March
Rick Distaso
Gloria Allred
Donna Thomas
Catherine Crier
Richelle Nice
Justin Falconer
Shawn Sibley
Martin Laffer

Originally posted by dan4081 [*]


Why are you listing jurors and witnesses? [/*]

It is a reply to a question concerning possible witnesses in the civil trial. It might be interesting to have some jurors, who came to a verdict or were excused, as witnesses along with former prosecuters and detectives. This isn't meant to be a complete list but a representative sample of some people who might be interesting to call. Some of them are no longer local, some never were. The point is it could be disruptive for some to travel to Modesto or where ever the trial may be.



MOO

Originally posted by W_D_1 [*]


One I'd love to see the defense call just to clear up some questions would be Kim McGregor. Her actions were always very weird. [/*]

Exactly. In away it will be interesting just to see "where are they now".

Originally posted by dan4081 [*]

Got ya.
I dont believe jurors can be called as witnesses. Maybe someone can chime in here (Katprint?) [/*]

I'm just guessing those who wrote the book gave up any rights to confidentiality.

Originally posted by Luke Davis [*]I'm just guessing those who wrote the book gave up any rights to confidentiality. [/*]

I would like to say otherwise, but the answer is no.

[Babes]

Does scott P even have any money or assetts left on his name? Why would the Rochas sue if all they will have to do is pay some bills?

Scott P is on death penalty at San Quentin . He'll die on lethal injection soon so what can they get from him? Or why dont we just face it - they needed to sue so that this case will be hitting the news again and will bring more money on book sales?

Originally posted by Babes [*]Does scott P even have any money or assetts left on his name? Why would the Rochas sue if all they will have to do is pay some bills?

Scott P is on death penalty at San Quentin . He'll die on lethal injection soon so what can they get from him? Or why dont we just face it - they needed to sue so that this case will be hitting the news again and will bring more money on book sales? [/*]

The unsuccessful fertilizer salesguy is secretly the greatest writer of all time and is going to make a gazillion dollars off his story.

[Mamie]

Originally posted by Luke Davis [*]It is a reply to a question concerning possible witnesses in the civil trial. It might be interesting to have some jurors, who came to a verdict or were excused, as witnesses along with former prosecuters and detectives. This isn't meant to be a complete list but a representative sample of some people who might be interesting to call. Some of them are no longer local, some never were. The point is it could be disruptive for some to travel to Modesto or where ever the trial may be.



MOO [/*]

Oh please Dear God, spare us from any more of Justin F! JMO

Originally posted by wyatt [*]

And just WHO do you think pays the judge, jury, bailiff, court clerk etc? [/*]

Not Scott.

Originally posted by Mamie [*]

Oh please Dear God, spare us from any more of Justin F! JMO [/*]

Did you read his book?

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon [*]Did you read his book? [/*]

He's literate?

[Katprint]

Originally posted by dan4081 I dont believe jurors can be called as witnesses. Maybe someone can chime in here (Katprint?)

In a nutshell, only relevant evidence (including testimonial evidence from witnesses) is admissible. It might be interesting to hear the thoughts of the criminal trial jurors but their personal opinions are not really relevant to any issues in the civil trial - just like our opinions are not really relevant either - so they cannot be called as witnesses. The civil trial jurors will hear fresh evidence and will make up their own minds.

By contrast, let's pretend that the criminal jury had been tampered with - for example if the Rochas had bribed or threatened the jurors to obtain a guilty verdict. In the jury tampering trial, the former jurors from the prior trial could be called as witnesses because their testimony would be relevant to jury-tampering issues.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Jay]

Originally posted by earth goddess [*]It is everyone's right to sue someone for whatever reason. It is the Judge who decides if it is a frivilous (sic) or nusance suit. The state does not pay for the law suit - the person who files it pays.
[/*]

A Right of action is, yes, of course different from a Cause of action, however, state laws now afix some the title of "vexatious litigator" and can ONLY be permitted to file a case once the Judge has approved it, even before the defendant even sees it.

Then the defendant can file thier Answer/Motion to dismiss, etc. after they are served.

Some are permitted to proceed "in forma pauperis", and the filing fee is waived, but in a Wrongful death suit, it is very unlikely a court would permit a Plaintiff to procceed as such, as the Attorney certainly would advance the client.

[Mamie]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon [*]Did you read his book? [/*]

You're serious right? He has a book? No, I haven't read it.

Originally posted by Katprint [*]
In a nutshell, only relevant evidence (including testimonial evidence from witnesses) is admissible. It might be interesting to hear the thoughts of the criminal trial jurors but their personal opinions are not really relevant to any issues in the civil trial - just like our opinions are not really relevant either - so they cannot be called as witnesses. The civil trial jurors will hear fresh evidence and will make up their own minds.

By contrast, let's pretend that the criminal jury had been tampered with - for example if the Rochas had bribed or threatened the jurors to obtain a guilty verdict. In the jury tampering trial, the former jurors from the prior trial could be called as witnesses because their testimony would be relevant to jury-tampering issues.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions [/*]

Kat, you're walking somewhat of a different path then the question I reponded to, which was posed in reference to jurors who wrote a book. However, your "let's pretend" prompted an interesting thought.

Let's play, but not pretend (my fingers will never leave my hand).

Here's the game (knowingly limited). A juror, Gregory Jackson (MD and attorney) tells Judge Delucchi that he feels physically threatened -- because of statements other jurors have made. He further tells Judge Delucchi that comments had been made to him personally that made him reflect on whether or not his safety as a juror was an issue.

However, rather then investigate the perceived threat, Judge Delucchi asks him: "As you sit there now do you feel you can be a fair and impartial juror". Gregory Jackson replies: No. And he is removed from the jury.

Did Judge Delucchi properly investigate and/or try to cure the possible "coercion of a juror"? Is it reversible error. If so, what is the remedy?

[Katprint]

Originally posted by Wudge+ <respectfully snipped>
Did Judge Delucchi properly investigate and/or try to cure the possible "coercion of a juror"? Is it reversible error. If so, what is the remedy? [/*]

Because the judge in the civil trial is NOT allowing the plaintiffs to rely on res judicata (the thing has already been adjudicated) / collateral estoppel as to the guilty verdict for the murders, nothing that happens in the criminal appeal will have any effect on the civil trial.

As to the eventual outcome of the criminal appeals, well, it is really counting one's chickens before they hatch to speculate until the appellate briefs have been filed. Also the moderators will lock the thread if it begins to rehash the criminal trial and not discuss the civil trial.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Originally posted by Katprint [*]

SNIP

As to the eventual outcome of the criminal appeals, well, it is really counting one's chickens before they hatch to speculate until the appellate briefs have been filed. Also the moderators will lock the thread if it begins to rehash the criminal trial and not discuss the civil trial.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions [/*]

Improper juror removal is certain to be an appeal issue. My questions clearly were in regard to that.

I think the most recent input from Coldwater said that we would be permitted to discuss evidence and issues from the criminal trial as long as the discussion remained civil and respectful.

Beebee, WD1, alter ego, anyone?

Originally posted by holiday [*]It is to stop the baby killer from profiting. Read up.

[/*]

Just how much profit do you think Scott could make? I doubt his profit would equal the cost of the trial.


MOO

Originally posted by Luke Davis [*]Just how much profit do you think Scott could make? I doubt his profit would equal the cost of the trial.


MOO [/*]

If Scott wrote a book, I bet he'd make millions off it.
"If I Had Done it"

Originally posted by earth goddess [*]

If Scott wrote a book, I bet he'd make millions off it.
"If I Had Done it" [/*]

Then why hasn't he written it?

Originally posted by dan4081 [*]

Maybe he has.

You'd have to ask him. [/*]

I'm not interested in his opinion. I am interested in those who think he would be rich from telling his story.

[Jay]

Originally posted by Luke Davis [*]I'm not interested in his opinion. I am interested in those who think he would be rich from telling his story. [/*]

According to this link, CA's Son of Sam law is still constitutional:


http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=13495

Originally posted by Wudge+ [*]

Improper juror removal is certain to be an appeal issue. My questions clearly were in regard to that.

I think the most recent input from Coldwater said that we would be permitted to discuss evidence and issues from the criminal trial as long as the discussion remained civil and respectful.

Beebee, WD1, alter ego, anyone? [/*]

Yes, we can discuss the criminal case as long as the same old tired fighting doesn't start up.

Originally posted by Jay [*]


According to this link, CA's Son of Sam law is still constitutional:


http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=13495 [/*]

It was struck down in 2002

http://www.metnews.com/articles/keen022202.htm

[Jay]

Originally posted by alter ego [*]
It was struck down in 2002

http://www.metnews.com/articles/keen022202.htm [/*]

I see, thanks!!

[Jay]

Originally posted by holiday [*]Not true according to the website you provided.

http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=15490

California high court mulls 'Son of Sam' law

By The Associated Press

12.07.01 [/*]

Yes, but in the link you quote, under; "Update" it says it was struck down:


http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=15773

They should change the front page I linked then to reflect the update.

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1 [*]


One I'd love to see the defense call just to clear up some questions would be Kim McGregor. Her actions were always very weird. [/*]

What would you like to ask her?

[California]

Originally posted by holiday [*]

Your question was answered. Why aren't you satisfied with the answer? He can profit and he shouldn't. That is the point.

How about the nutcase who has been running around pretending to be Scott's lover and said he confessed? She was finally exposed as the fraud she is via the modesto bee, but she still put her self published book on amazon and barnes & noble. She made money by tellng pure lies.

Do you think that is right?


[/*]

Who is that?