The videos released in July 2015 by David Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress showed Planned Parenthood staff discussing the dismemberment of unborn babies and the sale of their body parts.
Though the videos were the central matter of the Planned Parenthood suit against Daleiden, Judge William Orrick refused to allow the jury to see the videos in a part of the proceedings on October 8. Paul Jonn, attorney for Gerardo Lopez, objected.
MR. JONNA: Okay. As far as Larton and Nucatola, as we pointed out, Mr. Lopez viewed those videos before he decided to go undercover. And he transcribed those videos before he decided to go undercover. And the statements made in the videos are relevant to explain and to understand what motivated him to get involved in the project. And that’s highly relevant in this case because they’re suing him for a RICO conspiracy; they want punitive damages.
The jury should be able to hear what it was that motivated him to get involved. It wasn’t a desire to commit federal offenses. It was a desire to prevent them from being committed.
So it’s — it’s highly relevant, also, to the federal wiretap claim. And it’s unfair for him to just say what motivated him, without showing the jury what he actually saw.
So those two videos go directly to his motive and intent. And we think it is highly prejudicial for him to not be able to testify and show the jury which videos were instrumental in his thought process in getting involved in this project.
As far as the other two videos, Dr. Taylor and Tram Nguyen, showing the videos without sound is not really going to accomplish much. The whole point is for the jury to see what was being said while there were people around. Just like what we talked about last week, with the Dr. Nucatola lunch video.
THE COURT: Right. At the moment, you haven’t given me — I don’t know what it is that was said around people. And so that’s the question. The issue is whether this testimony which would otherwise be excluded under 403 or relevance is actually relevant because it was being discussed with, you know, people in the area. And that was the same thing that we went through with the videos regarding Ms. Merritt.
MR. JONNA: Another point, Your Honor, is, you know, I read all your motion-in-limine rulings. I’m very familiar with the Court’s orders. None of those rulings, in our view, ever said that we couldn’t show the CMP videos that they are suing over in this case.
I mean, they are suing, saying these are illegal recordings. And the jury is going to make a decision about whether these are illegal recordings, and they’re not going to be allowed to see these videos.
That was never addressed in your motion-in-limine rulings. That’s news to all of us.
THE COURT: Well, I have read and re-read my orders, because there does seem to be some confusion. And I think I’ve been quite clear about this. And I’m trying to continue to be clear, Mr. Jonna.
So, I appreciate your confusion. But the rulings, I think, have been consistent, and they will remain.
MR. JONNA: So what I would suggest, Your Honor, which is what we put our papers, is that if they don’t want those clips shown to the jury, then they should withdraw their claims as to those clips. How can the jury make a decision whether those were illegal recordings, without seeing them?
THE COURT: The point, Mr. Jonna, is with respect to the claims in this case, it is information that occurred prior to the filming of the videos, and whether those strategies were appropriate or inappropriate. And what you want to do is get into — and I think it’s always been the desire of the defendants to get to the truth of these issues —
MR. JONNA: No.
THE COURT: — that I’m not allowing.
MR. JONNA: Sure. And Your Honor, that’s clear from
your rulings. There’s no question about it. THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. JONNA: We don’t want to prove — I mean, we certainly want to, but we understand the Court is stopping us from proving what’s been asserted or what’s been claimed as true. We understand that.
We never thought that we couldn’t at least show the videos that are the subject of this entire case. I mean, this is
what — the case is about these videos. The jury should be able to see these videos that they’re suing over…
Access the full October 8th transcript here..
I find this tragically amazing. If the crime involves the videotaping, how can there be a conviction if the jury is not shown the videos?! In my secular profession as an arson investigator, I can’t imagine presenting evidence that implicates a defendant and having a judge not allow that evidence to be shown to the jury!
Because the Judge is AFRAID of the TRUTH presented in these videos, and AFRAID that the Jury will see the obvious. So-o-o he needs to protect the projected OUTCOME that he is INVESTED in regardless of how convoluted his reasoning may be.
“Even though the wicked may protest that peace is theirs and no evil shall harm them, do not believe them. For God’s wrath will suddenly overtake them, and all they have done will be brought to nothing and their plans destroyed,
The glory of good persons is in their own consciences, not in the praise of others.The happiness of the good is in God and of God and their joy is in the truth.”
From “The Imitation of Christ, Chapter 6, On the Joy of a Good Conscience
And the truth that is being denied in this case is that the body parts of unborn babies are being used against both the laws of man and of God.
Or perhaps there are rules of evidence which limit what the Judge can admit. Something similar to the Miranda rule?
Not in this case, apparently. The Miranda ruling is meant to protect the rights of defendants. In this case, the defense wants the jury to see the videos of the crimes they allegedly committed and the prosecution wants the defendants convicted for a crime, but doesn’t want the jury to see the alleged crime! The prosecution can’t have it both ways! The judge does have the authority to admit the videos into evidence and allow the jury to see them. What’s the harm in allowing the jurors to see the alleged crime? Of course, it doesn’t serve the narrative of Big Abortion.
My point is that the Judge does NOT have authority to admit evidence when applicable legal standards dictate otherwise.
What applicable legal standard would prevent the judge from admitting the videos into evidence (especially when they’re the basis for the case in the first place)?
I can think of none. Can you think of one?
Yes. His wife.
Well “try this one on for size” Mike M. How can a jury convict David Deleiden of wrong doing if they never see the evidence against him .If I were on such a jury, I would refuse to convict if no evidence were presented, not seeing it is just hearsay. This whole thing is fishy, and.since you like to ask so many questions, why do you not ask how many on the jury are involved in or give to Planned Parenthood.
I’ve never claimed to be a lawyer. Are you, Deacon?
No, but as a peace officer, I’ve presented evidence to the District Attorney and City Attorney offices and know a fair amount about matters of evidentiary value. And, the “rules of evidence” are usually meant to protect defendants. In this case, the judge’s exclusion of evidence harms the defense’s case. Judges have a lot of latitude in their courtrooms. I was wondering if there was a legal basis for Orrick’s decision to exclude the videos. And, it seems you presumed there was one, which is why I asked. The defense team alleges that Orrick has a long-standing relationship with Planned Parenthood. I haven’t yet heard a reason to give that judge the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, in light of the quality of the defense attorneys and the judge’s possible conflict of interest.
This is from LIfe Legal Defense Foundation, part of the defense team in this case:
It is illegal to kill a baby that is born alive during an abortion.
“An important component of our defense is that the undercover investigation was initiated to secure evidence of criminal wrongdoing,” said Life Legal Defense Foundation Executive Director Alexandra Snyder. “We heard an example of this very kind of illegal activity yesterday, but it is hard to imagine how justice will be served if significant evidence is suppressed.”
(Ms. Snyder is one of the attorneys working for the defense.)