From the American Foundation for Equal Rights (plaintiffs’ representative) we have this preview of Day Ten (Monday) of the Prop 8 trial along with their summary of the success of Dr Herek’s long testimony and cross examination on Friday. See you soon!
DAY TEN OF PROP. 8 TRIAL ON MONDAY/AVAIL INFO
Trial on Unconstitutionality of Prop. 8 Begins Day Ten in U.S. District Court on Jan. 25;
Plaintiffs to Enter Evidence and Rest Case
For latest information, visit www.equalrightsfoundation.org
The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 will continue Monday, January 25 at 8:30 am. Before resting their case, the plaintiffs will present documents and videos that reinforce points made during the first two weeks of trial.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights launched the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case and brought together Theodore Olson and David Boies to lead the litigation.
Taking the stand Friday, Jan. 22 was Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. a Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis. He testified about the nature of sexual orientation; that mainstream mental health professionals and behavioral scientists do not regard homosexuality as an illness or disorder, and that “change therapies” have been scientifically discounted, and can be extremely harmful. He endured more than five hours of cross examination without wavering from his testimony.
Herek testified that sexual orientation was not readily changeable, and that “change therapies are especially harmful because they present view that homosexuality is an illness or disorder, so when therapy doesn’t work, individuals are led to think it’s a personal and moral failure.”
He also testified about the stigma and prejudice that gay men and lesbians face; the harm to gay men and lesbians and their families caused by Prop. 8; and how domestic partnerships are inferior to marriage and are linked with the stigma gay men and lesbians face.
A “social stigma” gave “a level of permission to attack” gays and lesbians, Herek said. “[Marriage] is not simply a word. Just the fact we’re here today suggests this is more than a word.”
Olson and Boies also showed Dr. Herek the deposition testimony of defendants’ expert Daniel Robinson, one of the four expert witnesses dropped from their witness list. Robinson, like the three other experts dropped from their list, made statements damaging to the defendants’ case and in support of the plaintiffs during his deposition, as was shown in court this week.
For, example, the defendants’ experts stated that equal marriage would increase family stability and improve the lives of children; that sexual orientation is not something that can be readily changed; and that gay men and lesbians have faced a long history of discrimination including violence – discrimination that continues today and that includes Prop. 8. They also acknowledge broad scientific and professional consensus in favor of equal marriage.
UPDATE: Apparently Defendant-Intervenors added Frank Schubert, the head of Prop 8 Campaign Manager consulting firm Schubert Flynt, to their witness list on Saturday, 48 hours before they plan to call him today. Plaintiffs’ counsel has asked that he be prohibited from testifying, since the subjects he will be asked to testify to are the same ones that his own counsel, and D-I counsel, told him NOT to testify to 76 times during his deposition.
I think we might have some fireworks over this proposed addition of a non-responsive deposition witness this morning. See you there!



14 Comments







Go Teddy! Thanks for all your and the whole FDL team’s work!
And keep laughing,
rxb
I wonder what the reasoning is behind calling Mr Schubert to testify?
It’s called “sandbagging”.
The Court is likely to rule in the following manner, which is particularly apropriate since this is a bench trial (as opposed to a jury trial): the judge will review the 76 or so questions which the witness was directed not to answer and rule on whether he should or should not be compelled to answer them. Then, the judge will allow (actually, require) the deposition to continue and that the witness answer the questions previously posed, as well as any other questions which would flow from the answers to those questions. The judge will likely require the defendants-intervenors to pay for the delayed deposition (a couple thousand dollars between reporters fees and transcription and video, if they are using video deps).
IF the plaintiffs can show their discovery or trial preparation was affected by the balky defense posture, then they will be allowed to get more discovery, reopen parts of their case or otherwise compensate for it. Additionally, if (as I suspect) the defendants played this game so as to allow the balky witness to get to hear what the plaintiffs’ case (and the testimony and evidence) was and then craft his answers to meet the parts of the trial already in, then the judge might bar the witness or discount his testimony, more likely the latter.
Sequestration – Precluding later witnesses from being in court while earlier witnesses are testifying, so as to avoid such chicanery as the later witness’ crafting their testimony to game the earlier witness’ testimony – is a common feature in criminal cases, but not so much in civil cases (where the stakes are considered lower because no one is fixing to go to jail).
Thanks for that info Scribe. If you recall late Friday the Judge asked who the D-I’s first witness would be, and they responded that they didn’t know, but they would let the plaintiffs know at least 48 hours in advance (Saturday morning). It certainly appears that they’ve been planning this sandbag for some time.
If your prediction that the deposition be allowed to continue is correct, does that mean that the court will delay the proceedings to allow for this, or will the court require that the D-I’s call one of their other two witnesses while the deposition proceeds?
Thanks so much for the answers!
Good luck today, Teddy! Thanks for all your hard work (((bear)))
The reasoning probably is to discredit/undermine Tam’s testimony. They want to be sure to have a deep trench between them and him.
Teddy & Company: I can’t even begin to express my gratitude and appreciation for your timely reporting, exacting detail and especially capturing in words the emotion that is omni-present.
Now if we could only read the attorney’s minds…..
As they say, “…it ain’t over till the fat lady sings…”
Jon Walker has a fresh cross-post up: Some Elements Of The Bill Are Popular” – The Foolish Mantra That Won’t Save House Democrats
Why would they persist in a direction they’ve been told not to?
You can lead a horse towards the water of truth, but getting them to drink is a whole ‘nother can of worms.
((Teddy — both of yous.))
Teddy – what a labor of love you have undertaken. Thank you and more power to you.
Fascinating.
Tam’s testimony was hilarious — and very important to the plaintiff’s case.
Meanwhile in Moscow. . .
(((Teddy)))