Frank Locascio Evidentiary Hearing.

[mafiastudent]

They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.

You need to look at pretrial hearing documents to see what was and wasn't allowed. Just because he was cross examined thoroughly doesn't mean anything. Defenese or government don't AGREE...they are ordered by the court based on motions. You need to brush up on some basic law. Google it...

[mafiastudent]

They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.

You need to look at pretrial hearing documents to see what was and wasn't allowed. Just because he was cross examined thoroughly doesn't mean anything. Defenese or government don't AGREE...they are ordered by the court based on motions. You need to brush up on some basic law. Google it...

It has nothing to do with disbarring anyone....again motions and the judge's decision. Simple as that. The lawyers provide case law to support their reasoning and the judge rules.

[mafiastudent]

Some basic information on pretrial hearings...

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-p ... tions.html

[Pete]

They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.

Did you read the case file I linked? Cardinale said specifically he didn’t go at Gravano cuz he was scared gotti would kill him

[mafiastudent]

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/crim ... tions.html

[Confederate]

They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.

You need to look at pretrial hearing documents to see what was and wasn't allowed. Just because he was cross examined thoroughly doesn't mean anything. Defenese or government don't AGREE...they are ordered by the court based on motions. You need to brush up on some basic law. Google it...

Prove that LoCascio's lawyers agreed to NOT ask Gravano about LoCascio's involvement or non involvement at the Trial. Otherwise, it's a bunch of nonsense theory bullshit that is irrelevant. Your the one suggesting something so stupid, so go ahead and prove it....

[mafiastudent]

They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.

You need to look at pretrial hearing documents to see what was and wasn't allowed. Just because he was cross examined thoroughly doesn't mean anything. Defenese or government don't AGREE...they are ordered by the court based on motions. You need to brush up on some basic law. Google it...

Prove that LoCascio's lawyers agreed to NOT ask Gravano about LoCascio's involvement or non involvement at the Trial. Otherwise, it's a bunch of nonsense theory bullshit that is irrelevant. Your the one suggesting something so stupid, so go ahead and prove it....

Like I said...you can go onto Pacer and pull all the pretrial documents in that case. I don't have the time or the inclination nor do I want to spend money on any of that. I dont' have to prove anything to you. You don't want to look at basic law and how a trial works...that's your problem ... not mine. So, keep talking....there's no theory here...it's the way law works. Call up a local criminal attorney in your area and ask. I gave you links.

[mafiastudent]

They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.

You need to look at pretrial hearing documents to see what was and wasn't allowed. Just because he was cross examined thoroughly doesn't mean anything. Defenese or government don't AGREE...they are ordered by the court based on motions. You need to brush up on some basic law. Google it...

Prove that LoCascio's lawyers agreed to NOT ask Gravano about LoCascio's involvement or non involvement at the Trial. Otherwise, it's a bunch of nonsense theory bullshit that is irrelevant. Your the one suggesting something so stupid, so go ahead and prove it....

Like I said...you can go onto Pacer and pull all the pretrial documents in that case. I don't have the time or the inclination nor do I want to spend money on any of that. I dont' have to prove anything to you. You don't want to look at basic law and how a trial works...that's your problem ... not mine. So, keep talking....there's no theory here...it's the way law works. Call up a local criminal attorney in your area and ask. I gave you links.

And once again, you need to reread what I said. Lawyers from either side DON'T AGREE. Either side files a motion and the judge decides. The other side has no choice once the judge makes his or her decision. It isn't a negotiation.

[Pogo The Clown]

[quote=mafiastudent post_id=153773 time=<a href="tel:1590718904">1590718904</a> user_id=6105]
They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.
[/quote]


Yeah there is no way a court ruled that LoCascios lawyer couldn't cross examine Gravano about the DiBono murder when that was the crime charged in the trial and was what Gravano was testifying about. MS is confusing a judge possibly excluding a witness's past history or unrelated crimes on cross examination with cross examination of the issue at trial (DiBono's murder).

[quote=Confederate post_id=153775 time=<a href="tel:1590719195">1590719195</a> user_id=5427]
[quote=mafiastudent post_id=153773 time=<a href="tel:1590718904">1590718904</a> user_id=6105]
They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.
[/quote]

Did you read the case file I linked? Cardinale said specifically he didn’t go at Gravano cuz he was scared gotti would kill him
[/quote]


If that happened (a big if) then it was the responsibly of LoCascio and his attorney to notify the court and LE that they were being threatened.


Pogo

[mafiastudent]

I mean, honest to god, do you not understand LAW...and I'm talking BASIC TRIAL LAW. Theories? There is no THEORY. Fact. Check it out.

[mafiastudent]

I mean, honest to god, do you not understand LAW...and I'm talking BASIC TRIAL LAW. Theories? There is no THEORY. Fact. Check it out.

And just so you know...not only do I understand basic law because I needed to for my Crea story....but I also graduated from court reporting school and had to learn BASIC LAW as part of my education. So, I think I'm a little bit more educated than you might be in this regard.

[Confederate]

They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.

You need to look at pretrial hearing documents to see what was and wasn't allowed. Just because he was cross examined thoroughly doesn't mean anything. Defenese or government don't AGREE...they are ordered by the court based on motions. You need to brush up on some basic law. Google it...

Prove that LoCascio's lawyers agreed to NOT ask Gravano about LoCascio's involvement or non involvement at the Trial. Otherwise, it's a bunch of nonsense theory bullshit that is irrelevant. Your the one suggesting something so stupid, so go ahead and prove it....

Like I said...you can go onto Pacer and pull all the pretrial documents in that case. I don't have the time or the inclination nor do I want to spend money on any of that. I dont' have to prove anything to you. You don't want to look at basic law and how a trial works...that's your problem ... not mine. So, keep talking....there's no theory here...it's the way law works. Call up a local criminal attorney in your area and ask. I gave you links.

And once again, you need to reread what I said. Lawyers from either side DON'T AGREE. Either side files a motion and the judge decides. The other side has no choice once the judge makes his or her decision. It isn't a negotiation.

The Judge never ordered such a thing in this case so you're just talking about a theory which means nothing.

The Prosecution did a great job arguing LoCascio's guilt under the RICO Statute. The bottom line is that he's going nowhere & is right where he belongs. No Offense, but good luck with your theories & Crusade which is a waste of time & will go nowhere.

[mafiastudent]

They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.

You need to look at pretrial hearing documents to see what was and wasn't allowed. Just because he was cross examined thoroughly doesn't mean anything. Defenese or government don't AGREE...they are ordered by the court based on motions. You need to brush up on some basic law. Google it...

Prove that LoCascio's lawyers agreed to NOT ask Gravano about LoCascio's involvement or non involvement at the Trial. Otherwise, it's a bunch of nonsense theory bullshit that is irrelevant. Your the one suggesting something so stupid, so go ahead and prove it....

Like I said...you can go onto Pacer and pull all the pretrial documents in that case. I don't have the time or the inclination nor do I want to spend money on any of that. I dont' have to prove anything to you. You don't want to look at basic law and how a trial works...that's your problem ... not mine. So, keep talking....there's no theory here...it's the way law works. Call up a local criminal attorney in your area and ask. I gave you links.

And once again, you need to reread what I said. Lawyers from either side DON'T AGREE. Either side files a motion and the judge decides. The other side has no choice once the judge makes his or her decision. It isn't a negotiation.

The Judge never ordered such a thing in this case so you're just talking about a theory which means nothing.

The Prosecution did a great job arguing LoCascio's guilt under the RICO Statute. The bottom line is that he's going nowhere & is right where he belongs. No Offense, but good luck with your theories & Crusade which is a waste of time & will go nowhere.

AGAIN .... how do you know? Did you LOOK at pretrial motions? No....so whatever...I'm done arguing with idiots.

[Confederate]

They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.

You need to look at pretrial hearing documents to see what was and wasn't allowed. Just because he was cross examined thoroughly doesn't mean anything. Defenese or government don't AGREE...they are ordered by the court based on motions. You need to brush up on some basic law. Google it...

Prove that LoCascio's lawyers agreed to NOT ask Gravano about LoCascio's involvement or non involvement at the Trial. Otherwise, it's a bunch of nonsense theory bullshit that is irrelevant. Your the one suggesting something so stupid, so go ahead and prove it....

Like I said...you can go onto Pacer and pull all the pretrial documents in that case. I don't have the time or the inclination nor do I want to spend money on any of that. I dont' have to prove anything to you. You don't want to look at basic law and how a trial works...that's your problem ... not mine. So, keep talking....there's no theory here...it's the way law works. Call up a local criminal attorney in your area and ask. I gave you links.

And once again, you need to reread what I said. Lawyers from either side DON'T AGREE. Either side files a motion and the judge decides. The other side has no choice once the judge makes his or her decision. It isn't a negotiation.

The Judge never ordered such a thing in this case so you're just talking about a theory which means nothing.

The Prosecution did a great job arguing LoCascio's guilt under the RICO Statute. The bottom line is that he's going nowhere & is right where he belongs. No Offense, but good luck with your theories & Crusade which is a waste of time & will go nowhere.

AGAIN .... how do you know? Did you LOOK at pretrial motions? No....so whatever...I'm done arguing with idiots.

You are the obsessed idiot who is afraid to answer "Yes & "No" questions. Those are the kinds of questions asked in Court so people don't have to listen to a bunch of irrelevant bullshit. Then, in desperation, you start talking about your "credentials" of which nobody cares or believes & then you talk about theoretical possibilities that have nothing to do with THIS case. Yeah, we're the idiots.

[mafiastudent]

They'll cite all sorts of case law to support their reasoning and from that the judge makes their decision on whether to allow a certain thread of questioning.

But that never happened. Gravano was cross examined very thoroughly. Prove that the Defense agreed ahead of time to NOT Cross examine Gravano on something that would "possibly" help exonerate their Client??? You sound like an idiot. The whole Defense team would be sanctioned, possibly disbarred & might as well work for the Prosecution for Christ's sake.

You need to look at pretrial hearing documents to see what was and wasn't allowed. Just because he was cross examined thoroughly doesn't mean anything. Defenese or government don't AGREE...they are ordered by the court based on motions. You need to brush up on some basic law. Google it...

Prove that LoCascio's lawyers agreed to NOT ask Gravano about LoCascio's involvement or non involvement at the Trial. Otherwise, it's a bunch of nonsense theory bullshit that is irrelevant. Your the one suggesting something so stupid, so go ahead and prove it....

Like I said...you can go onto Pacer and pull all the pretrial documents in that case. I don't have the time or the inclination nor do I want to spend money on any of that. I dont' have to prove anything to you. You don't want to look at basic law and how a trial works...that's your problem ... not mine. So, keep talking....there's no theory here...it's the way law works. Call up a local criminal attorney in your area and ask. I gave you links.

And once again, you need to reread what I said. Lawyers from either side DON'T AGREE. Either side files a motion and the judge decides. The other side has no choice once the judge makes his or her decision. It isn't a negotiation.

The Judge never ordered such a thing in this case so you're just talking about a theory which means nothing.

The Prosecution did a great job arguing LoCascio's guilt under the RICO Statute. The bottom line is that he's going nowhere & is right where he belongs. No Offense, but good luck with your theories & Crusade which is a waste of time & will go nowhere.

AGAIN .... how do you know? Did you LOOK at pretrial motions? No....so whatever...I'm done arguing with idiots.

You are the obsessed idiot who is afraid to answer "Yes & "No" questions. Those are the kinds of questions asked in Court so people don't have to listen to a bunch of irrelevant bullshit. Then, in desperation, you start talking about your "credentials" of which nobody cares or believes & then you talk about theoretical possibilities that have nothing to do with THIS case. Yeah, we're the idiots.

Well, I have the education and the background. What are your credentials?