Results 1 to 10 of 17

Threaded View

  1. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    123

    Default Re: Harmless Error vs Reversible Error

    OK, I guess we wont deal with my question but instead questions from people who are not offering any information to the original question. Almost seems like a court room, here we are to deal with one matter but instead we will waste a entire day of the judges time on other matters just to get back to where we were in the beginning of the morning!

    I underlined where you had to ASS-U-ME

    lets break it down section by section.

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    You're being deliberately opaque about the facts, but we can piece things together from your prior threads. After you were by all appearances served, apparently while in a different state (Hawaii), with a TRO obtained by your spouse in Washington, you called her After being served with the TRO, you participated by phone in a hearing where you tried to have it set aside:
    yes except I didn't call her after I was served, I have never called her once I was served even till today 3 years later even though I have current visitation rights to my son living there, I wont even call him for fear that she could answer HIS phone and claim a violation of the WA order. I already had court orders from HI giving me all the visitation rights, a order that has been in effect for 5 years prior to her moving to WA and that I have never violated AND WA doesn't want to try to take jurisdiction from HI for but instead just make a whole new set of rules of their own that override HI's.

    Not really opaque, kind of more of a aqua tinted glass, see, I wanted people to see the facts and give the info that I need and I was trying to keep the side trackers out of it by not letting them offer me advice on my case instead of just the info I asked for. ohh well, I tried. I'm just asking for a simple few cases that someone may have come across doing research, not argue my whole case, like we are doing now, see how this is counterproductive?????



    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    You were charged with violating the TRO in Washington and, at trial, you objected to introduction of the Proof of Service from the person who served the TRO upon you as he wasn't available in court for you to cross-examine. Your defense in Washington was that you were not served with the order, and thus couldn't be prosecuted with its violation. An officer testified that he had heard a recording of the call, apparently that he recognized your voice from the recording, and presumably that it contained threats. The prosecutor offered as evidence of impeachment the proof of service documenting service upon you in Hawaii, and after some discussion the trial court permitted the introduction of the proof of service. You were subsequently convicted.
    lets start with the first ASS-U-ME you made. I had objected to the POS they had because it wasn't the real POS, not because I found a loophole. see my buddy is a cop, he is also my neighbor, we live in a small town where everyone knows everyone so when this subpoena came in they looked at him and said "you have his number, call him and have him come pick it up at the station" I did pick it up but never filled out a POS, he confirmed this with me after I asked him about a POS. The POS WA has is a WA POS, how would a HI officer get a WA POS? It was not completely filled out, it only had a signature on it that we couldn't read, it didn't have his name printed, only a box that said "peace officer" was marked. HPD protocol is to print out your full name, rank and unit, THEN sign. On the WA POS you couldn't read the signature AND it wasn't the officer that served me or ANYONE that works in that station! you also couldn't read the address and my signature was similar to mine but NOT MINE!! Then there was the problem of the WA POS being dated a FULL 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DAY I WAS SERVED!! Add in the fact that they couldn't verify where it came from? the judge let the prosecutor stick her neck on the line and she said it was faxed into her office from another office, but where did it originate? maybe, just maybe my ex faxed it in????
    Now see where the problem is with the POS?? we didn't want to spend a whole day arguing it and bringing in 15 officers from HI or anything like that, we didn't need to, we had Melendez-Diaz, we KNEW they couldn't come up with a witness, not that he just wasn't there, you know, the whole reason for Melendez-Diaz!! We knew it was correct and used that. Now when the judge admitted the POS we had to change strategy and strictly argue the "transcripts of a recording".

    So now we get to ASS-U-ME #2
    As I clearly shown above that wasn't our strategy at all was it?

    #3 First, even till this day the officer has never heard my voice, he even stated that on the stand. Now I understand where your coming from with the presumption of a threat, in order for a court to take this so far there would need to be the immediate threat of harm or disruption in quality of life right? Officer Sleaze (I cant make this stuff up!!) also stated that the recording he heard was a calm voice simply saying
    "Hello____, this is ____ and I'm concerned about our son, you made some claims about his mental health that worries me about his condition, I would also like to let you know I know about court on Aug 8th but I need to let you know that HI court is on Aug 9th and the information is waiting at your mailbox. You need to be there or court will go on this time with out you"
    Now that may not be verbatim but it is very close. It was so NON confrontational that he said on stand that he at first thought it was a message from her lawyer in the normal course of business!

    that was the only 2 piece's of information, the POS and this transcript. When asked my ex stated on stand that I had called at night and a couple days later called the cops, the prosecutor quickly told her to re-read her police statement and my stated "oh, that's right, he called me in the morning and I immediately called the police"!! seems kind of fishy that I say I only called at 7pm as per HI court order and this violation call came at 10AM, when asked her memory says I called at night but the paper the prosecutor had her fill out said I called in the morning.
    Great now you got me side tracking my own thread!!

    I actually don't understand that sentence that "The prosecutor offered as evidence of impeachment"?? OH, I get it, you ASS-U-ME my defense was that I called her but didn't know I was supposed to? NO, I never took the stand, I didn't have any witnesses. They had a POS and A transcript, I didn't think I needed anything else. We got my ex to say on stand that she would have lost custody if she were taking to HI court and that WA thwarted that HI hearing, we got her to say I called at night instead of the morning, we got her to admit she lied in HI court and very drastically, we got the officer Sleaze to say he couldn't say who the recording was from, he didn't write down or remember the number on the caller ID, his own error caused the destruction of the tape and that the call sounded like normal course of business and not a threat. We also to him to admit he couldn't read the POS, couldn't say where it was served or who served it only that my name was clearly written on it, in fact my name and the date was the only filled in part you could read!! we didn't think we needed anything further, they only had my ex saying it was me, the officers transcript of a recording and a POS, we thought we had covered all our bases.
    I believe the thing that sank the titanic on this case was that we had 12 members of a jury pool and could only use 6 for my trial. Now out of the 12, 9 of them where either victims of DV or active advocates working in the DV industry!! no matter how we sliced it at best we could get 3 of our 6 jurors as already against me!! we ended up getting 5 victims/advocates on my 6 juror panel!!


    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    On appeal the Court of Appeals held that you should have been permitted to cross-examine the process server, and thus that the introduction of the proof of service violated your Sixth Amendment rights. They nonetheless found the introduction of the proof of service to be harmless error because you had appeared (by phone) at the hearing on the TRO and would not have known of that hearing had you not been served.
    YES, you get it!! now the question is without the POS would the Jury know for certain that beyond a reasonable doubt that I KNEW I wasn't allowed to call her, I highly doubt it. I also don't think the appellant judge could say beyond a reasonable doubt that the lack of POS wouldn't have affected my trial results.
    and the clincher? on stand we got my ex to admit she was calling me and my mother telling us that "you will never see_______(our son) again after aug 8th, WA will make sure of that"!!
    I wonder how I could have known about the WA hearing? did I know what it was for, I had a vague idea but I didn't know I wasn't allowed to call her!

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    You attempted to argue on appeal that you might have learned about the Washington order and hearing by other means, such as by looking them up online, but apparently had not introduced any evidence to that effect at trial. The appellate court concluded that, as it could be reasonably inferred from the admissible facts and evidence that you had been served, the trial court's admission of the proof of service was harmless error (I.e., it found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the introduction of the evidence would not have affected the outcome of your trial.
    [/QUOTE]

    UH, NO, again with the ASS-U-ME......
    on appeals I only argued the POS, I didn't think in a million years it would have been found harmless because of the transcript saying I knew about hearing. I admit that we were so focused on the POS we lost sight of the big picture and didn't look at avenues of attack that the opposition had, for that I am paying a hefty price. I still think that even though I lost a battle that we will still win the war.

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    Is that about right?

    I don't know, you might have assumed a couple things and maybe lacking knowledge in other things?


    so now I have wasted my time answering your questions. I cant say that you wasted my time because I am a rational human being (even if I am a supreme being ) and know that I made the decision to answer all this and was not forced.

    Now the point of the board is to give information you may have to help others, clearly in this thread the two of you did not do this, in fact one could argue you did the exact opposite!

    Now I challenge you, to redeem yourselves to come up with either a appeal that was proven reversible error for having so drastically changed the defense strategy that they could not argue their original point or to come up with WA rules on determining harmless vs. reversible.

    I keep finding the same cookie cutter answer "if it affects the outcome of the trial or sentencing", is the the illusive "analysis"? is it that simple?

    Thank you for any information

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Error on Lease
    By ohiobackground in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-18-2009, 05:00 PM
  2. Speeding Tickets: Error on the Citation
    By Shipyaad in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-25-2009, 01:29 PM
  3. Ticket Errors: Error in Name
    By patrickh in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-15-2009, 08:39 PM
  4. Chapter 7: Bankruptcy Error
    By dukebluejeans in forum Bankruptcy Law
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-13-2008, 09:44 AM
  5. Minor in Possession: Error On Citation - Breathalyzer Result Error
    By triple_M in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-08-2008, 05:12 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources