Admissibility of Mel Gibson's tapes

[LostinVA]

Alot of posters keep saying they aren't admissible in court, but I know I've heard on TV there are, because there is an exception in cases of threats. I don't have time to look up the statute, but here's this from EW:




Mel Gibson tapes: Are the recordings admissible in court?
by Missy Schwartz
Categories: Celebrity Scandals, Mel Gibson, News You Can Use, Ripped From the Headlines!

It’s hard to imagine how the four recordings of Mel Gibson purportedly screaming obscenities, threats, and offensive epithets to ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva won’t serve as permanent IEDs to his public image. But what about the legal ramifications? The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department is currently investigating Grigorieva’s domestic violence claim against the actor, which stems from an alleged incident on Jan. 6, 2010, in which he is accused of punching her in the face. In one of the audio clips (which the world appears to have accepted as authentic — Gibson has not issued a statement yet), Gibson seems to admit as much, shouting “You deserved it!” when Grigorieva mentions the incident. That could be damning evidence. But are the recordings even admissible in court?

Normally, California law requires two-party consent for recording phone conversations, and it seems Grigorieva may have recorded Gibson without his knowledge. But as criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos explains, even without his consent, there is still a chance the recordings could make it into evidence. “Generally there’s a presumption that they are not admissible,” says Geragos, who has represented Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder. “However, there is an exception under 633.5, which in certain types of cases, they can be admissible. But that is a factual inquiry. A judge would have to rule on that.” The exception, he explains, only comes into play in “kidnapping, bribery, extortion, and crimes involving threats of violence.” Essentially, that means it’s up to Grigorieva’s legal team to convince a judge that the infamous rants should be admitted. But, according to defense attorney James E. Blatt, that shouldn’t be too difficult. “ will be admissible,” he says. “If someone is calling you to to say, ‘I’m going to bury you in a rose garden, and I have the ability to do that,’ I think that’s a reasonable inference of a criminal threat.” And Gibson’s rant might fit under another exception to the penal code: annoying phone calls. “I think it’s pretty clear that most people would consider these phone calls to be annoying,” Blatt says. “That’s an understatement.”


http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/07/14/mel-gibson-tapes-admissible/

[LostinVA]

1. One more link

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/ask_the_answer_bitch/b190015_could_mel_gibsons_ex_get_in_trouble.html?cmpid=rss-000000-rssfeed-365-topstories&utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_topstories

[Ozymanithrax]

2. What difference does it make...

Mel Gibson is a racist, anti-semitic, sexist pig.

Knowing that, each person will chose to support
his movies or not.

I stopped supporting Mel Gibson after The Passion of the Christ (2004) and

"F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?"

Now he goes off on N******s and women. What do we need to know about him to make a choice. Watch his films and support him with your money or not.

[LostinVA]

3. If makes a difference because in another thread were asking

And, i have been VERY vocal about hating the man since "Braveheart."

I am confused about your rather accusatory and hostile response to me, because I don't think either the tone nor the subject matter of my OP warrants it.

:wtf:

[Ozymanithrax]

6. I don't hate Mel Gibson...

I think his best work was in "Road Warrior" and "Hamlet." In the former, I was much younger with a higher testosterone count. In that latter, Gibson proved he could act quite well, though he is more a star than an actor. I did not particularly like Brave heart.

I made a choice not to support his art with my limited funds because he is a lousy human being.

I apologize if I came off too strong.

Look, I love H. P. Lovecraft's work. He was one of the great writers of horror of the early 20th century. But the guy was a racist and white supremacist. ("The Horror at Red Hook" particularly comments on "mongrel races" that are the result of mixing white with non white blood, not to mention alien things.) Now, he held those beliefs in common with the vast majority of Americans in the 1920's. Jack London, one of the great writers of English, was a racist who began and funded the search for the "Great White Hope." I feel conflicted when I reread their works, but they are dead artists who encapsulate the common world view in their lifetimes. We can not judge them by the standards we would use for the living.

Gibson is a living artist and art reflects the life of the artist. I choose not to support him and let others make that decision for themselves.

[LostinVA]

7. I still don't understand why you are telling ME this

Not trying to fight, I'm just confused. i have LOATHED Gibson since the homophobic cesspool of "Braveheart," and have been all over these threads saying as much. It seems like you think I'm saying the opposite of that, when I most definitely am not.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. What difference does this whole Mel Gibson tempest in a teapot make..

We either support his art on not. His wife can decide if he is a sufficient jerk to divorce him.

[Kalyke]

24. Um, hitting a woman (which he admits) makes him quite a bit more than just a mere jerk.

It makes him a violent criminal.

I'll ask again: Did we forget the OJ Trial and domestic violence, already?

[LanternWaste]

13. Acted well in Hamlet????

Acted well in Hamlet???? :rofl: Much like Keanu Reeves acted "well" in Much Ado About Nothing...

I suppose art is in the eye of the beholder. I thought he was one-dimensional (is there anything less than one-dimensional? If so, that would be the more appropriate adjective) in that performance and was completely and obviously carried by Zeffirelli and the supporting cast.

[Ozymanithrax]

14. Compared to Maverick or lethal weapon...yes...

I didn't say he was a great actor, just that he did well.

He is no Linda Hunt who stole "The year of living dangerously."

But in comparison to most of his other roles, he did well. I am not comaring him to Sir Laurence Olivier. I'm only comparing Mel Gibson to Mel Gibson.

[LanternWaste]

28. Well, actually that it was amongst his best work...

"just that he did well..."

Well, actually that it was amongst his best work...

[LostinVA]

17. Glenn Close was good

[uncommon]

8. It makes a difference about whether or not he will actually be punished.

Genius.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Ahh, you want to punish him...

and make an unnecessary personal attack on me.

We might want to worry about convicting him if and when he is charged with anything. So far, all I can see that he is guilty of is being an anti-semitic, racist, sexist, jerk. He convicts himself with his own words.

[EOTE]

15. Do you really think that he won't be charged?

It's also quite clear to me that he physically assaulted the mother of his child and threatened her life numerous times. There are a lot of us who are interested in whether or not his words will be admissible. I want him charged, I want him convicted and yes, I want him to be punished. You're acting rather defensive for someone who went on the attack in your first post.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. My post was not attack...and yes, I think is it possible he will not be charged.

And if he is, he is innocent until proved guilty by a jury of his peers.

I'm willing to wait

Whether charged or not, whether convicted or not, I will still not support his art with my money. He is an anti-semitic, racist, sexist asshole.

[EOTE]

18. So I guess we should be prohibited from discussing the case against him until the trial's done.

You mention his art and your money over and over again, but it has nothing to do with the OP. The OP was about the admissibility of his audio tapes. If you don't want to comment on that, that's fine. But to attack and be so dismissive is incredibly rude. And you saying it wasn't an attack doesn't make it less so.

[LostinVA]

20. People in the other thread questioned it

I said I had heard on TV it was admissible, so I Google, and posted this OP and posted in the other thread. the poster in the OTHER thread who said it wasn't admissible thanked me for finding the info. I thought the info would make the discussion and debate more information-based.

Thanks!

[EOTE]

22. Any time.

I don't understand what prompts people to to comment on stories they feel are unnecessary. They obviously cared enough to respond to them, but in such a snarky manner (and usually fairly off topic).

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting OP. I, for one, hope that the tapes will be admissible (and I believe they will be).

[LostinVA]

19. +1

[Cheap_Trick]

4. There was a precedent set with the Lewinsky tapes.

Wasn't there? They were made without her knowledge or consent. Or is it legal wherever she was?

Or was there an exception made to try to take down President Clinton?

[LostinVA]

5. It's legal in many, many states

[Princess Turandot]

10. Actually, Linda Tripp *was* indicted for making the tapes...

because it was illegal for her to do so w/o the other person's approval in the state of Maryland. The prosecution was later dropped because of 'credibility' issues associated with Lewinsky. It would not have related to Gibson's situation, however, since it took place in a different state.

[TexasObserver]

9. It could come into evidence a variety of ways.

The most likely way it gets into evidence is to impeach Gibson in some aspect of his testimony. If he denies saying something he said on the tape, the court might allow the tape to prove he lied on some point in his testimony.

There's also the broad reach of applying child protective laws. The tapes are evidence of conduct that is threatening to the child. It's always relevant in a child custody matter if a parent is abusive to the other parent. The interests of the child are paramount, and the guardian ad litem might be able to use the tape in court, even if the mother cannot.

I think the tape will come into evidence if Gibson denies saying anything that the tape reveals. If he admits such things in court, either by stipulation or by testimony, the tape should not come into evidence. Only by admitting the things on the tape can he likely avoid hearing it played to impeach him. Typically, such a tape comes into evidence only after a party on the tape has denied saying or doing something which the tape can prove otherwise.

Given Gibson's history, given his alcoholism, his raging rants, and his abusive nature toward women, it seems very unlikely the tapes can be kept out of evidence if he denies saying the things he is heard to say. A tape can be admissible for one purpose (impeaching the witness, for example) while not being admissible for some other purpose.

Frankly, there's no way in hell the judge keeps this out of evidence in a civil case if it is authenticated as Gibson, and if he denies saying such things.

[upi402]

21. His lawyer might argue that his abuse wasn't toward the child

...but at the spouse. There may be evidence supporting his accusations of gold digging -for all I know.

I don't like the guy at all. That aside, she's in for some investigation. Gibson is sure to have experienced hands sniffing along her bunny trail. And if he goes after her for violating 2 party consent and trying to gain from it - she will be in court a LOT! There could be appeals until the kid is graduated from college... or in rehab.

[LostinVA]

23. "Gold digging" isn't illegal

I also think it's a rather sexist term, and I also don't think Oskana is a "gold digger."

[upi402]

25. neither is using the term 'gold digger', illegal

or swearing, or yelling. It's abusive, not criminal. Does the term 'gold digger' specify a gender? I don't know, and not worried about it either.
Funny she didn't marry a construction worker her own age. But yeah, I pay little attention to this distraction type of crap and have no info. You probably have evidence that she never used his money, doesn't want it, and will not take any. I don't.

[Triana]

26. If he was threatening her, or admitting to assaulting her, which he did..

....I believe they are admissible or will be.

"involving threats of violence" - well they were.

[Heidi]

27. Recommended.

:kick: