Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

The Road to Perjury

Televising Trial analysis

by Brian Leubitz

Yesterday, during the cross examination of plaintiff’s expert Michael Lamb, defense attorney David Thompson had Lamb comment on studies by two “experts” that the plaintiff had planned to call during the trial. It seems now that the two “experts” were, according to Prop 8 counsel Andy Pugno, “fearful of retribution” if they were to testify.  Apparently the mere suggestion that their evidence would be videotaped shocked them into submission. Nothing like confidence in your own work, for you there.  Anyway, that’s Pugno’s story anyway. The real story, as is so often the case with Pugno, is actually far different.

“The experts they withdrew were ones that [gave deposition statements] that simply disagree with their thesis,” said Boies. He said plaintiffs would introduce evidence later to show that the defense’s own experts have “admitted that they did not have a basis for believing that same-sex marriages would harm heterosexual marriages and no reason for depriving gay and lesbian couples marriage [and doing so is] depriving gay and lesbian couples harm. They admit that,” said Boies, “and it guts the case of defendants.”(Keen News Service 1/15/2010)

For some legal background here, depositions for trial, though not typically held in a court room, are under oath. Such evidence can be admissible to the record on certain occasions. Now, many depositions are taped these days so that the court reporter can verify the testimony and to preserve the record. If that occurred in this instance, it puts the lie to Pugno’s explanation even more clearly. But, even if there is no video of the deposition, the fact that the experts were not willing to testify simply because they might be videotaped should be a big red flag for the court.

In the end, these experts might end  up blowing up in the defense’s face. If Boies and team is able to show what he claims, that their testimony was without basis, the experts  have opened themselves to charges of perjury. Removing the possibility that the defense team knew about the baselessness of the depositions, because such a circumstance would be an egregious violation of professional responsibility, this also has huge implications for the case. If the defense experts admitted that there is no basis to say there is harm to straight marriages, that point becomes a big longshot to recover for the defense.

These two experts and the story surrounding their disappearance should be closely watched as we head into the second week.

Tags: , ,

71 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Zachary  |  January 16, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Awesome news to wake up to (but everything seems a bit better when you get to sleep in til noon)! Hopefully, Boies and Co. will indeed be able to demonstrate their claim.

    The defense just keeps becoming a bigger and bigger joke. Every day, I become more and more optimistic (but still cautiously so).

    Tuesday can't get here soon enough.

  • 2. JC  |  January 16, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Holding my breath for this to be proven…. Thank you for continuing to post important info over the weekend!

  • 3. Charles  |  January 16, 2010 at 3:07 am

    small typo in here:

    "Apparently the mere suggestion that //there// evidence would be videotaped shocked them into submission"

    It is very good news indeed! How funny would that be that the experts be trialed for perjury (trialed? or something else?). Then even in front of the Supreme Court, the trial wouldn't hold any case. I mean, how can the Supreme court rule against the plaintiff if the defender's sides have no arguments and no experts?? (in a case that isn't even being defended by the governor??)

  • 4. Zachary  |  January 16, 2010 at 3:09 am

    "Tried for perjury." :)

  • 5. Esteban  |  January 16, 2010 at 3:18 am

    I have a question, how much longer is the trial expected to go on? also, how long should we expect the Judge to give his opinion once the two sides are done arguing?

  • 6. Brian Leubitz  |  January 16, 2010 at 3:19 am

    thanks…corrected the there/their issue

  • 7. Esteban  |  January 16, 2010 at 3:20 am

    charles, i believe the verb you´re looking for is ´tried´

  • 8. truthspew  |  January 16, 2010 at 3:22 am

    This was clearly evident in the deposition process. They don't have a leg to stand on and they know it. They'll use the rules to try and muddle the game but they're in a losing proposition.

  • 9. Kyle  |  January 16, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Bigots should be fearful of retribution. They should be fearful of becoming pariahs.

  • 10. couragecampaign  |  January 16, 2010 at 3:54 am

    It appears that the trial will last another 1-2 weeks, according to most sources. If anyone has better info, feel free to post your links in this thread. — Eden w/ Courage.

  • 11. george  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:03 am

    I don't see the perjury. It's one thing to lie about that which is being claimed; it's another to have a weak argument, e.g. baseless in fact, but based on personal opinion.

  • 12. Korbinos  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:06 am

    and this:
    FDA set to ban gay men as sperm donors http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7749977/

    I tried to donate sperm (since I'm a poor college kid) and they told me I couldn't since I was at high risk for HIV. I responded telling them I'm a virgin and they told me that didn't matter. They go through rigorous month-long testing to make sure you are healthy and have no STDs, but they wouldn't even test me.

  • 13. James  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Yeah, but if I understand how the deposition went, the experts had apparently started out with the gay marriage = bad conclusion, and through questioning ended up with "no evidence of this," so if they had testified gay marriage = bad on the stand after the deposition, they'd be deliberately ignoring the 'revelation' they had in the deposition, and as such, basically lying on the stand to support their arguments.

    Once you admit to something, you can't go back to what you used to believe without lying about the facts. Plus, they'd probably get to the same conclusion during direct, and if not direct examination, definitely the cross examination. In the end, the truth will come out, and if they come to the same conclusion they did in the deposition (assuming that it is gay marriage doesn't harm stuff), it basically begs the question of why they would have bothered to testify that it does in the first place if they weren't deliberately trying to deceive the court.

  • 14. Nicki  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:34 am

    i read in the comment section of Emptywheel's coverage, that they could be going for a Trade Secrets of some kind of nonsense like this, their right as a group, (of course i consider them a hate group ) to their lists, their emailings , all that privacy stuff, with the additonal bogus claim they fear of reprisal from us big meanies lgbtq – playing the victim – But Brian thank you for the post , its wonderful how brilliant our bench is and i am so grateful to ALL of you lawyerly types and the Attorneys who will go to the mat for us. – the analysis, is all great grist for the Mill. And we are going to keep on keeping on ..i mean Shazzam on the work yesterday regarding the cease and desist letter , the Courage Campaign received. I am glad the bloggers have a chance to rest up, the process recording is beyond grueling and I feel so PROUD of our SIDE. I feel cautiously optimistic. I see perjury everytime they repeat a lie – And if they have the courage of their convictions sit on the Witness Stand. Glad our side is so smart and thinking of every possible legal angle.

    we are going win. esp if they keep cherry picking non expert opinions, in addition to very very old research. The judge is seeing right through that seems to me.

  • 15. Marko Markov  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:55 am

    I've been searching for answers to these questions all day but couldn't find anything :-(

    Another one – is the vote by the Supreme Court anonymous?

  • 16. Marko Markov  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:59 am

    What about the decision?

  • 17. Pearl  |  January 16, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Harrumph! To all the BS Protect Marriage is spouting on preserving the sanctity of mariage!

    Divorce rates higher in states with gay marriage bans. http://tiny.cc/AEVI8

  • 18. Charles  |  January 16, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Not related to this article in particular, but:
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100

    This is a really good, long, detailed and researched article on the trial and the context of the trial. Real journalism at last! Thank you, New Yorker!

  • 19. Charles  |  January 16, 2010 at 5:08 am

    I believe it is, too. *blush*

  • 20. Charles  |  January 16, 2010 at 5:09 am

    yes. *blush*

  • 21. John  |  January 16, 2010 at 5:09 am

    It's just ridiculous.

  • 22. Buddha Buck  |  January 16, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Which Supreme Court? And probably not.

    In the SCOTUS, which I'm most familiar with, there are a number of procedural actions which take place behind closed doors. It takes the vote of 4 justices to grant certiorari, for instance, but rarely do we find out how any particular justice voted on certiorari.

    For cases decided on their merits, the Justices issue written opinions, in which they detail their reasoning to come to their decision. Sometimes there are disagreements, so multiple written opinions will be released, One opinion is the "Opinion of the Court", the other opinions are either "concurring" — agreeing with the decision, but disagreeing with the reason — or "dissenting" — disagreeing with both the decision and reasoning.

    Opinions are usually signed, although it is possible that the "Opinion of the Court" could be release "Per Curiam", Latin for "from the bench", and is unsigned. Technically, the authorship and supporters are anonymous, but with just nine choices, it's not hard to figure out.

    The decision that shut down the video was issued per curiam, but the signed dissent was signed by 4 Justices. It's obvious that the 5 remaining Justices agreed with the decision, but none of them chose to sign the decision.

  • 23. Aaron  |  January 16, 2010 at 5:38 am

    can't the plaintiffs COMPEL them to testify? with a subpoena? i know they were DI witnesses, but can't the plaintiffs call them to testify anyway????

  • 24. Jane  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:08 am

    THANK YOU for doing this everyday. We've just spent the last 4 hrs reading the last 2 days to catch up.

    I have a question for a legal mind:
    Isn't the issue at hand bigger than just perjury. If the prop 8 lawyers knowingly submitted witness testimony which they knew to be baseless, or in fact a non-truth, wouldn't those lawyers be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including be dis-barred?

  • 25. Ray  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Thanks and keep posting updates! I live on the East coast and the day goes long out West and I can't see it all the same day.

    This is a no-brainer. There simply is no more a rational basis to deny same-gender marriage, as there was to deny mixed-race marriage. Loving v Virginia rules! Yea!

  • 26. Ronnie  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:37 am

    It's not over until its over but……….
    BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

    Hhahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

    Looks like the purged a little more then they can chew..yeah?

    hehehehehehe…….LMAO!

  • 27. Patrick  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Judge Walker has reserved time Tuesday, Wed, and Friday this coming week (not Thurs…) as well as Mon and Tues the following week. It could go longer, but with the withdrawing of 2/3 of the D-I's witnesses, it will likely finish ontime.

    Keeping spirits up here in NM…

  • 28. Aaron  |  January 16, 2010 at 7:50 am

    anyone got any idea what the answer is to my question?

  • 29. waxr  |  January 16, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Readers may like to see the political cartoon on the Cal Law website http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=120

    The cartoon depicts prop 8 attorney Thomson cross examining George Chauncey. In the background is judge Walker. Thomson is asking Chauncey, 'And isn't it true that you are not, in fact, homophobic?'

    You can also read the story which goes with the cartoon.

    You will have to register to get on, but there is no cost.

  • 30. Jane  |  January 16, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Amazing! I always said I'd be totally embarrased to be on their side, but sheesh, this is really bizarre. The looked like fools before and they look like total idiots now.

  • 31. george  |  January 16, 2010 at 8:48 am

    Meh, I don't see it. Certainly don't see anyone pursuing it.

  • 32. eDee  |  January 16, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Could someone explain this to me: "same-sex marriages would harm heterosexual marriages"

    I'm straight, I have gay friends, co-works and relatives. I'm pretty sure I'm capable of screwing up my marriage just fine on my own. I don't see how my 65 year old gay aunt getting married is going to contribute to ending my marriage.

    But worse, I grew up on the other side. I was a hater, I went to the rallies, I was convinced all gays were going to hell and I was going to help send them there – AND I Still can't decode how they perceive same-sex marriage would in anyway harm traditional marriage. Am I missing something, isn’t traditional marriage what same-sex couples are after? Two people, tax exceptions, life insurance policies, the ability to visit ones spouse in the ICU without being told “you’re not family”? Isn’t that traditional marriage? I’m not trying to make a point, I’m really asking the question.

    Maybe since I have removed myself from "the dark side" I can't think as I did then. I can tell you all the tricks, scare tactics and how they brainwash children/teens/adults by distorting the truth, but I can't get my head around this "harming traditional marriage" thing.

  • 33. michael  |  January 16, 2010 at 10:17 am

    That's amusing

  • 34. michael  |  January 16, 2010 at 10:20 am

    I think that we are going to be axed from the Health Care Bill as well.

  • 35. michael  |  January 16, 2010 at 10:25 am

    I believe that they can be called anyway because they are on the witness lists. Either side can call any witness listed.

  • 36. michael  |  January 16, 2010 at 10:35 am

    It is only an excuse they use to hide behind. If it's in the Bible then that's the way it is going to stay, unless what is in the Bible applies to themselves then its selective adjustment.

    Instead of focusing on how they have destabilized marriage with widespread divorce's and multiple remarriages that have truly undermined the institution they have decided it must be the evil rotten terrible "Gays"

    It's called Psychological Projection

  • 37. michael  |  January 16, 2010 at 10:44 am

    They may be considered a Hostile Witness like Tam, but since testimony was admitted/submitted in deposition deviation/reversal from said testimony discredits any other positions being admitted as expert testimony.

    Because they can't now support their findings filed in deposition they are trying to remove those witnesses that can damage their case further.

  • 38. John  |  January 16, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Another way gays are discriminated against: We can’t donate blood…or anything else that can be saving lives.
    The Red Cross and the AMA want this 27 year old rule changed. But fear trumps reality once again.

  • 39. eDee  |  January 16, 2010 at 11:13 am

    I have 13 years of Christian school education and I can't remember ever reading anything in the Bible about same-sex couples – only gay (male) prostitution (and female prostitution).

    There are plenty of rules that married couples have to live by (ha ha) which are laid out in the Bible, however those rules only apply if the couple is a man and a woman.
    Obviously, God and those who wrote the Bible understood a marriage between a man and a woman would be more difficult since a man and woman don't understand each other. Since men think like other men and women like other women, the same male domineering and female submissive rules wouldn't have to apply.

  • 40. David  |  January 16, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Just lie. Seriously. Just lie your face off. I give blood all the time. :D Then I go home to my "wife".

  • 41. David  |  January 16, 2010 at 11:38 am

    The point is that when put under oath you can't change your tune just to win a trial.

    (Before being put under oath:)

    A) I admit gay marriage will probably not hurt straight marriage.

    (After being put under oath:)

    B) Gay marriage will DEFINITELY hurt straight marriage. Did we win yet?

    Do you see how if you could do that it would make going to court a kind of useless exercise?

  • 42. michael  |  January 16, 2010 at 11:47 am

    Yes and the other passages that are in there is sex acts being done in temple by priests/priestess pagan and Christians.

    It is must easier to just follow along and not ask questions for a large portion of Religious people. I'm a Pentecost Survivor.

    I find it convenient for them to ignore the "Adulterer's " part that is usually before and after the passages being said to be about gays. Anyone who has left a Marriage and remarried except for the reason's outlined is guilty of the Adulterer bit if they have remarried. The fact that they continue in that "sin " and do not turn from that crime and remarry their ex-spouse kind of just makes them into a bunch of hypocrites. But then that would be about them, along with all the other updates and revisions about Biblical Laws, but those few still on the Stone Tablets is supposed to be about "us" so it totally different.

  • 43. eDee  |  January 16, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Michael, I'm stealing this: "Pentecost Survivor"
    Two words which describe perfectly how I feel – I'm going to make t-shirts!!
    Thank you and Good Night.

  • 44. Aaron  |  January 16, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    so would it be beneficial to call them??

  • 45. Michael Herman  |  January 16, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    Holy crap… I hope with everything I have that the Prop 8 supporters gets charged with Purjury. It would fall in line so perfectly with the outright lies used in their campaign that I would even go so far as to call it "divine retribution," and I'm not even religious.

  • 46. JonT  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    I agree, and definitely worth the read. Thanks for the pointer! FYI: The OP posted the URL to the last page – here is the URL to the

  • 47. michael  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    Yes, For several reasons. And not for only this case.

    Since their "experts" supported their case's entire position we undermine their whole findings and declarations further. So they have no standing possible without experts to prove it. Word of mouth or opinion from the people that worked on the proH8 without facts to back those claims and opinions are worthless in court. Meaning their position and views are groundless. (As if we didn't already know this)

    Getting them on the stand and showing their true purpose in supporting the H8 exposes them to the court/world the next time a case like this comes up they will be discouraged from trying the same BS. This case where they will be destroyed and embarrassed will be used against them in every trial every time. (Remember when the defense brought up past case testimony during cross?)

    Getting these quacks up on the stand undermines them in the field's that they claim to be "experts" in. Further damage to our "people" can be minimized by bringing awareness of their total fraudulent views in regards to GLBT . The fact that they purpose to be "experts" about something that is this baseless all their research is taken apart.

    Since the position that the defense has chosen is totally unsupportable getting as many of them on the stand and shredded helps our case and ultimately our cause for Justice at the Federal Level because these peoples claims/findings are usually shown as "experts" We benefit each time they get discredited.

    When the facts of this case is exposed to the world the people that stood in the way of equality, who do this as a career, are shown to be liars, frauds and bigots. Exposing these people for who they really are benefits all of us.

  • 48. michael  |  January 16, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Send me a check….LOL

  • 49. Shira  |  January 16, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    "Removing the possibility that the defense team knew about the baselessness of the depositions, because such a circumstance would be an egregious violation of professional responsibility, this also has huge implications for the case."

    Why on earth would you remove this possibility? To me it seems the most plausible one.

  • 50. Kaylis & Clover  |  January 16, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    Clover says that the way in which lgbt marriage destroys heterosexual marriage is by providing a much better example of what marriage should be that they can't live up to. It's that fear thing again. She adds, "I mean that two women or two men have to really think about being together as a couple and fight uphill against all the discrimination as opposed to the simple assumption of growing up and getting married. And I don't think as many same sex couples believe that staying married just happens rather than requiring ongoing work and effort. Maybe after 50 years of marriage equality and total acceptance we'll be that complacent, but most of us don't seem to be now."

    Think about all those people who realize after getting married that they can't stand the way their spouse squeezes the toothpaste tube or drops their dirty clothes on the floor and then decide they aren't happy any more so they leave. Many don't analyze what does and doesn't make a relationship because they don't think they have to.

    We aren't saying that there aren't lgbt people that jump into and out of relationships. When we're seeking a long-term relationship we are more likely to realize what it takes and more likely to be successful.

  • 51. Jane  |  January 16, 2010 at 11:32 pm

    reading what's going on here is interesting….

    reading the blog on the Protectmarriage.com site is even more interesting……. the spin doctors are hard at work

    Yes, there's a first amendment, that doesn't include taking responsibility for what one says….until you're under oath in a court of law.

  • 52. george  |  January 17, 2010 at 12:32 am

    As i see it, perjury comes into play when one lies in their deposition and at trial. People change their stories at trial all the time after being impeached by their deposition testimony. In any case, experts are all about opinions, and these guys ain't amateurs. No perjury, no way. Too tenuous.

  • 53. Jane  |  January 17, 2010 at 12:36 am

    I've just finished reading Andy's blog on ProtectMarriage.com — Fascinating stuff to think about:

    1. Why is CA in the marriage business?
    I'm invisioning the letter Californians will receive — your marriage has been converted to a "domestic partnership". As the Federal Govt does not recognize DPs you are no longer eligable for the over 1000 civil rights provided by the word marriage. You can no longer be guaranteed COBRA coverage even if your company offers DP benefits. And your DP's insurance will be taxed differently than in other states that allow marriage. Your children will not receive SS in the event of your death. And your state will no longer receive any federal funding associated with "marriage". We will petition the fed govt to perform a search/replace in all documents to try and return the rights associated with the partnership prevoiusly known as marriage.

    2. As it is best for society that biological children are raised by their mother & father, if you haven't already remarried you are here by DP'd to your former spouse if you had children together. All adoptions are null & void and children will be returned to their biological parents regardless of why they were put up for adoption in the first place, including via foster care due to abuse. Children of single mothers will be required to provide DNA to be entered into a statewide database for the purpose of finding their biological father. Once found a DP will issued for the biological parents. We understand this will cause some angst regarding Jaycee Duggard and her alledged kidnapper, but as he is the father of their children the requirement still holds as California is a state that does not recognize individual circumstances or choice of partner and there is no other way to maintain society except to have children raised by their biological parents. We will have to determine if "spousal privilege" will prevail in the kidnapping trial (okay folks, we all know what happened to this girl is DISGUSTING & TERRIBLE, but it shows the absurdity of what the Prop8 ppl believe – so you have my apologies for the disgusting example, however, if they got their way about it, what would be the possibilities — are there any studies to prove otherwise? ).

    I'm surprised his blog doesn't say:
    The plantiffs attorneys attempted to enter into the record voting records which passed the Civil Rights act of 1964 but they were suspiciously misplaced. We will continue to object to anyone being questioned regarding their donations to the KKK. .

  • 54. Alan E.  |  January 17, 2010 at 12:48 am

    The fact that we have to lie about this is just one more reason.

  • 55. michael  |  January 17, 2010 at 3:00 am

    Because these "experts" testimonies backs their case finding, from their view point, proving that they did this intentionally would be hard to prove.

  • 56. michael  |  January 17, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Long term relationships are totally different then marriage. What they are trying to compare is apple and oranges. It would be like us showing Hetero married couples vs Hetero couples who date proving that marriage isn't necessary because the amount of couples that split would harm marriage. That is what they are trying to do to unmarried homosexuals couples vs married heterosexual couples.

    Marriage is a commitment unlike any other, to compare it to any other is ridiculous. Also trying to prove that the commitment we are bared from entering is supported by behaviors that are common because we are not allowed to enter into marriage.

  • 57. Colt  |  January 17, 2010 at 4:23 am

    I know it's been said a lot before, but I just wanted to send a huge thank you to the bloggers AND all the commenters here! I feel like whenever anyone is the least bit confused, a helpful lawyer jumps in and explains everything SO clearly. I'm still sad this trial couldn't be on YouTube, but sometimes I feel like this is almost as good a way to follow everything that's happening. Kudos to everyone and I hope you're all having a wonderful weekend (resting up for Tuesday)!

  • 58. Aaron  |  January 17, 2010 at 4:44 am

    thank you!

  • 59. Rick  |  January 17, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Any indication as to when the decision will be announced? Weeks, months? Obviously either side will appeal to SCOTUS. When's the earliest they would hear the appeal? 2010-11 session? Final ruling in June of 2011? Can SCOTUS choose not to consider an appeal? If so, does the district court's ruling become the law of the land? Sorry for so many questions!

  • 60. Marco Luxe  |  January 17, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Of course there is no harm, just as post-Loving, marriage as an institution didn't suffer.
    Prop H8ers never say, but I think they imply the Corollary to the Groucho Marx Club Membership Postulate.
    [GMCMP] "I wouldn't want to be in any club that would have me as a member"
    becomes, [GMCMP'] If those filthy f*gs can get married, then I don't want to have any part of that polluted ideal that's now ruined for all us normals.
    Of course, reality has nothing to do with it.

  • 61. Marco Luxe  |  January 17, 2010 at 9:54 am

    #59-1: this is exactly why the CAL supreme court failed to overturn Prop8 as the law required. The logic was clear for them to follow: a) Marriage equality is constituionally required [Marriage Cases - suspect class]; b) Marriage is now an unequal institution via Prop8; c) Unequal institutions are inherently unconstitutional [Brown, etc] , concl) unequal marriage is unconstitutional. Only DPs for all pass constitutional muster.

    But they were fightened wimps afraid of a recall vote [a stupid Cal artifact]

  • 62. Pete  |  January 18, 2010 at 12:56 am

    Maybe a dumb question, but if they (pro prop 8 witnesses) were subpoenaed and treated as hostile witness, would they be required to explain there justifications (I really am interested ) or risk contempt?

  • 63. missdk  |  January 18, 2010 at 8:40 am

    wait… for real?

  • 64. nightshayde  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:49 am

    I'm not entirely sure that stating the opinions you believe to be true can really be called "lying," even if the facts are not correct. In order to "lie," I think you need to be aware of the fact that you're saying something that isn't true.

    If they actually believe the hateful things they say (even though we know the hateful things aren't true), they're just "wrong" rather than "lying."

    Right? Or is there some other legal terminology for this?

  • 65. nightshayde  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:58 am

    However, since Prop8 was put forth as a Constitutional Amendment, the CA Supreme Court could no longer claim that Prop8 was unconstitutional according to the state's constitution. Isn't THAT why the court couldn't overturn it without the Feds stepping in?

  • 66. nightshayde  |  January 18, 2010 at 9:58 am

    I really really hope we find out.

  • 67. Chrys  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:06 am

    Why not call them as witnesses for oour side instead?

  • 68. Robyn  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:08 am

    I thinks that's wrong. These "experts" are defense witnesses. The only chance plaintiff's counsel gets at them is on cross-examination (and in the deposition). Legally, either side isn't allowed any contact with the other sides witnesses except for the depo. The "we are afraid of video" is a red herring, they are afraid of cross-examination because their "experts" deposition testimony seriously undermines their defense position. (ie that it hurts the kiddies) The "they are afraid" story is a complete cover. But, they can't really say, your Honor, we aren't calling our experts because their deposition testimony totally (and I mean completely) undermines our defense position.

    But, without their experts fully debunked on the record, they may have a better chance to be heard on appeal…

  • 69. Aaron  |  January 19, 2010 at 4:18 am

    how can you use it on appeal if you didn't introduce it in trial? i am not an attorney, but i ddidn't think the appeal was a place where you could introduce new facts….i thought it was to argue that the trial judge made an error of some kind with evidence he either did or did not admit, or with his analysis of the law. ???? can anyone clarify??

  • 70. V Abi Abad  |  January 19, 2010 at 5:30 am

    My name is Abi..I am a Gay California citizen and have resided in California for 35 years. I married my partner of 33 years in 2008, when s/s marriages were legalized. I am university educated and forged a career in Social Work, from which i retired in 2000.
    During my life and career, I experienced numerous personal attacks of prevailing bigotry and prejudice not only from outside individuals, but moreover from coworkers on the job. When locel news media filmed me participating in a local Gay Pride Parade and the event made local TV broadcasts, the word hit-the-fan so to speak on my job and soon after when I attempted to promote, my effort was denied. Many times I heard coworkers in clearly audible but whispered conversations in the hallways and coffee klatches along with occasional sidelong glances at me. Of course, my intuition told me what it entailed. However I could never prove anything, because no one approached me directly.
    When my own sister, who considers herself a staunch Roman Catholic discovered my homosexuality, she disowned me I conclude on the basis of her religious beliefts.
    What I am stating is that equality, whether in the work place or in personal life, does not exist for millions of Gays and Lesbians, and the situations I experienced definitely imposes psychological effects upon those of us who live through it. We have learned to survive and to prevail, All of these matters are encouched in basic human rights, among them being the right to marry, which has been proven in interracial marriage cases. This case only expands those arguments for basic human rights for the GLBT Community. Hatred and prejudice based on religion is not a legitimate argument to deny s/s couples the right to marry.

  • 71. GrannieDee  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:24 am

    Years ago, many KKK members used their religion as an excuse for their treatment of non-white, non-Christian people.

    I walked with my black brothers and sisters then, and I walk with my GLBT friends today.

    I serve a loving God through a risen Savior, who stated in the New Testament that all the old is gone and to live by this rule:"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and spirit and your neighbor as yourself."

    I love you all, and I will support you until you my time here is over.

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!