Salem Legal Follies

DrBakerFan

DrBakerFan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
55,158
Location
Annapolis, MD
Belle wasn't exactly at the top of her game today, blowing opportunities to help her idiot client.

Witness Chad: She let him take the stand without ascertaining what he was going to say that would have helped EJ. If she had, she could have gone on the attack after he changed his testimony in an attempt to damage EJ. He also should have been questioned about the possibility of third parties hacking into DiMera computers.

Witness Lucas: She could have pressed him more closely about his lack of knowledge about EJ and the kidnapping, and if he took a hostile attitude, she could have tried to cast doubt on his credibility by grilling him about his many prior bad acts. E.g., "Mr. Horton, isn't it true that you lied to law enforcement to prevent your son from going to prison for shooting Mr. DiMera??

Non-witness Sami: Belle actually let Sami give the court an affidavit instead of cross-examining her. It would have been far more effective if the Screecher testified in person that she has no idea about who kidnapped her.

Non-witness Jason: This crook-for-hire should have been put on the stand to testify that he has no idea about who employed him to guard Sami.

Belle wasn't exactly a ball of fire, but if Melinda brings her nasty attitude into the courtroom, a judge or jury just might vote to acquit a defendant just to spite her.
 
It seemed Belle felt she knew what Chad was going to say.....but he didn't. And when she said...."but you just said..." & Trask questioned if Belle had talked with HER witness prior to this, (ex-parte)Belle had to backtrack quickly & drop it.
 
The trial was a new low for the shabby Salem legal system.

EJ: His taking the stand was moronic. He's lucky that Trask kept her questions about his prior bad acts short and sweet. If she'd chosen to do so, she could have gone on for hours.

Belle: Yes, she has a fool for a client, but she really dropped the ball with Chad, the only witness to present evidence that potentially incriminated EJ -- the payments to Jason from DiMera accounts. Belle could have brought up the DiMera's long-running laxity toward security.
  • Mr. DiMera, isn't it true that your family mansion has no real security system?
  • Mr. DiMera, don't intruders regularly walk right into your family home, and wasn't your father's body double shot by such a person?
  • Mr. DiMera, couldn't a hacker obtain passwords from the company computer system, and isn't it likely that third parties could have stolen the passwords while company executives were sleeping, drinking, or fornicating?
The Judge: Since there was no real evidence connecting EJ with the kidnapping, he appears to have convicted him because he'd kidnapped Sami in the past. This is improper. Prior bad acts can be used to undermine a defendant's credibility, but not to suggest that he/she is guilty of a similar subsequent crime. Also, why wasn't he in the DiMera's pocket like all the other judges in Salem, such as Karen Fitzpatrick?

Grounds for an Appeal: Belle should now appeal EJ's conviction because it is against the weight of the evidence.
 
Contrary to what Melinda thinks, an EJ appeal will hardly be a waste of time. At trial, no evidence was offered directly connecting EJ with the kidnapping and there's no proof that it was EJ who made the payments from DiMera funds to Sami's guard. If Belle can get her act together there's a good chance that EJ's conviction will be found to be against the weight of the evidence.

Meanwhile, Melinda's campaign against Rafe will probably go nowhere. For starters, somebody needs to tell her that she doesn't give orders to members of the police force. If she wants to throw her weight around, she ought to go back to the D.A.'s office and browbeat some of her ADAs. She also might consider that her case against the upstanding Rafe consists entirely of testimony is based solely on testimony from lowlife criminals who have less credibility than Ava or Sami.
 
Last edited:
The writers truly need a person with common sense. You are right, as EJ, like other Salemites, will get exonerated eventually since there was nothing presented to convict him, except references to his past crimes for which he never paid.
 
EJ was right to throw a fit over his ten-year sentence. In Illinois, the sentencing guidelines for basic kidnapping call for a seven-year maximum sentence. That said, Belle should have been stressing to him that an appeal was not hopeless, but rather a slam-dunk. In fact, if the appeals court wrote an opinion, it would probably include strong criticism of the trial judge's handling of the case. (This guy probably isn't fit to handle cases where Salemites are claiming that their parked cars were wrongfully ticketed.)
 
LOL, Most sites indicate Illinois as the state where Salem is. If not, hard to explain how it's citizens are fans of theCubs, Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls, and talk of going "up" to Wisconsin (which is where Sami was held hostage), to ski (and there ARE ski resorts in Wisconsin.
There IS a Salem Illinois, tho located middle of that state. There is also a Salem, WI, just over the border, in eastern WI.
Days always refers to Chicago being very close, residents have gone to see plays, concerts, etc. there, doubt one would be traveling more than an hour or so for that kind of treat.
I do agree however that it is amazing that Salem's citizens do seem to be able to get to far off destinations in less than an hour. No matter if Boston, Paris, Cancun, Toronto, Seattle, or Rome!
 
Bet Carrie figures Belle did the right thing, took EJ on as a client, did a lousy defense, especially allowing him to testify himself, thus insuring he would be found guilty and do jail time. Finally, spending time there after skating free from crimes against the family.
 
Chanel keeps fantasizing about taking LIttle Johnny to the cleaners. She needs to get a grip. This simply won't happen. No court would leave the little creep destitute. Chanel could expect alimony that would allow her to have the standard of living of a DIMera wife, but factors that work against her getting a lot of money are the brevity of the marriage and her current, good earning capacity.

If Rotten Ray actually sued Allie and Chanel for breaking their movie contract, he'd become a legal laughingstock. A person can only get damages for breach of contract if he/she has suffered some monetary injury. The absence of two easily-replaceable young women with no demonstrated acting ability or experience doesn't harm the lowlife. And no court would order the girls to perform their contract. The best that Mr. Rotten could do would be to get an injunction against them appearing in another film while his is being made.
 
DrBakerFan said:
The best that Mr. Rotten could do would be to get an injunction against them appearing in another film while his is being made.
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming this. As I was writing, this was my assessment as well. If even a non-lawyer like me knows this - why doesn't a legally-trained person (Ron C) know it?

Or are we to assume Ron & evil Ray know it, and they're bullying Allie and Chanel?

As to: Johnny's finances, it's unlikely he has any actual money of his own, for one thing; for another, it's unlikely that any DiMera has money that is actually theirs until DUH PLOT calls for it.
 
The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to a "speedy trial," but in Salem they're taking this to ridiculous extremes. It's almost as bad as the 19th century when in some places, murderers were tried, convicted, and executed within the space of a few weeks,. In the real world, Rafe might not go to trial until 2023 or 2024. And why hasn't he been granted bail? He's not exactly a major flight risk like EJ who has plenty of money and a private jet at his disposal. Finally, district attorneys are careful about whom they place on the stand. Not Melinda' -- her witnesses are a joke. They're all career-criminal, jailbird lowlifes with ties to the Vitali crime family. Any good defense attorney would shred them on cross-examination. The jury probably wouldn't be out more than ten minutes before delivering a not-guilty verdict.
 
As usual, Belle is falling short in her representation of her client. She seems to think that because the verdict against EJ was a judge's decision, the only way to win an appeal is to flip a witness. (E.g., let's get Chad to admit he committed perjury at the trial.) Somebody should tell her that judge's decisions get overturned all the time. It happens every time the Supreme Court reverses a lower court decision. Another example is Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis the first baseball commissioner who banned the 1919 Black Sox from baseball for life. He wasn't so high and mighty when he was on the bench. In fact, he was known for the frequency with which appellate courts threw out his decisions. For EJ's sake Belle badly needs to enroll in the Salem Bar Association's continuing legal education course on appellate practice.
 
Only in Salem would the police commissioner and a detective rush to the scene after Anna stabbed "Renee" with a syringe. If it contained no harmful substances. Anna would be guilty of assault, which is a misdemeanor. If the substance was life threatening or likely to cause serious injory, her crime was assault with a deadly weapon, which could easily be handled by a couple of uniformed cops.

If Nicole is going to be in the fashion business, she'd better get her legal issues straight. The name Basic Black can be trademarked, but her fashion designs are not copyrightable. In fact, some designers prefer it that way. I once attended a presentation by a veteran designer who said that copyrighting fashion designs could have a chilling effect on creativity. She also said that she did not worry about cheap knockoffs of her designs because the cut and fabric were inferior, and her customers would never buy second-rate copies.
 
Thanks, Dr. B.......I was rather surprised at Nicole's talking to attorney about that......what if another designer claims the knockoff is THEIR original??? Complete with expensive fabric, etc.

As to assault with a syringe.....no idea why the commissioner and a detective were necessary......but then, they both probably do patrol, give out traffic tickets, jaywalking, etc. since the police dept. is very limited in staff. After all Eli is now in a coma..Lani is useless since she won't leave the hospital. LOL And then JJ, the only uniform in town is gone.
 
Poirot, another designer could claim anything he/she wants, but it would be a waste of time because fashion designs are not copyrightable. Copies only become a problem if they are sold under another person's/company's trademarked name. Then the product is counterfeit goods, like the fake Gucci bags sold by vendors on the streets of Manhattan or the fake Rolex watches that were advertised in spam emails. As for Nicole, the answer to her problem is to make her dresses of such fine quality that her customers wouldn't even consider cheap knock-offs. After all, would Vera Wang's customers ever pass up her originals for cheap copies sold on street corners or flea markets.
 
Years ago, a coworker was having a "purse party", when they were all the rage. She was bragging how they were the actual designer bags, but sold for a fraction of the price. I said there's no way they were real, but she swore up and down that they were. She said that the designers allowed them to be sold via purse parties at a cheaper price for those who couldn't afford the bags from exclusive high-end stores that sold them. (which made no sense)

So I emailed the one designer's website directly to ask. Imagine my surprise when I got a reply from the head of their legal department. She said they were counterfeit bags and it was illegal to sell them. She wanted to know when the purse party was, where it was, and who was hosting it, because she'd arrange for it to be raided by the police. She wasn't playing. :eek:

While I didn't like my coworker, I didn't want to get in the middle of that, so I said I wasn't invited to the party, but would try to get the details, then let it drop. My stupid coworker had no idea that I saved her behind that night. I still have the email because I thought it was funny.
 
JS, your story about the purses is right on target. Copyright holders can be very aggressive when protecting their intellectual property. Disney is well-known for pouncing when they learn that somebody is making unauthorized use of its characters. There are many cases in which the jewelry designer David Yurman has filed suit against alleged infringers. And Mattel has no sense of humor when it comes to infringements of its copyright to Barbie. Of course, these companies don't always win. The creator of "Enchilada Barbie" (several Barbies lined up in a square pan, wrapped in tortillas, and covered with salsa) was able to convince a court that his creation was "transformative use."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top