Thread by @meghanncuniff

It's Day 8 of trial in Vanessa Bryant and Chris Chester's lawsuits against LA County, and it's a big one. Vanessa will testify, as will Sheriff Alex Villanueva. Judge Walter is starting at 7:30 because of rulings he needs to issue regarding Vanessa’s testimony. Here’s an example.

"That she can travel from location to location and country to country within the same trip reflects on her mental condition and ability to deal with the stresses of traveling." bit.ly/3ClA3Vo

Vanessa's lawyers: "...Mrs. Bryant’s recreational activities are irrelevant to determining whether (and to what extent) she has suffered emotional distress from Defendants’ unconstitutional sharing of photos of her loved ones’ remains."

LA County's lawyers at @MillerBarondess also want to ask Vanessa about this Instagram post about the helicopter company and the fact that she's never posted anything about the crash photos or the conduct "alleged" in the lawsuit.

Also on the horizon is a motion from LA County lawyers asking Judge Walter for a judgment that basically ends the case saying there isn't enough evidence to send it to the jury. These motions are standard in both criminal and civil cases and rarely granted.

In federal civil trials, they're brought under Rule 50 in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In federal criminal trial, they're brought under Rule 29 in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rul…

I learned about this legal concept when I was with @SpokesmanReview and a veteran reporter explained that we really don’t need to write about them unless a judge actually grants one, which rarely happens.

Sometimes, though, the judge's rejection of the motion includes comment about how slam-dunk guilty the defendant is or how the lawsuit claims have actually been proven quite well, which can be worth reporting. The motion isn't in yet but should be soon.

Here’s my @lawcrimenews article on Chris Chester’s testimony, which continues today with re-direct from Jerry Jackson. Then Vanessa will testify. Also testifying Thursday were @LAFDCO’s Sky Cornell, Arlin Kahan and William McCloud, which I’ll cover soon. bit.ly/3QCAtLk

Judge Walter is not allowing LA County’s lawyers to ask Vanessa about her Instagram post of broken hearts 💔 in response to the helicopter company getting a CARES Act grant. Says its “minimal probative value” is outweighed by potential prejudice and jury confusion under FRE 403.

He’s also excluding exhibits 669, 670 and 671. I’m on my phone in the hallway and don’t have time to look those up in the filing, but he *is* allowing exhibit 321, which is a screenshot of a search engine result. He says 317, 318 and 319 are admissible with a limiting instruction

Judge said he’d rule on other exhibits as the testimony comes in, but Vanessa’s lawyer Luis Li pressed him about an Instagram post of Vanessa dressed as Cruella Deville with a caption about another stage of grief being revenge. If it’s coming in, he wants to bring it up in direct

Walter seemed to waver on this, saying explaining the background of the Disney character would move this into 403 waste of time territory, but he thinks the caption is relevant because Vanessa is adopting the quote as her own.

They’re starting soon. More TK.