Skip to comments.Mel Gibson recording's admissibility in court is murky, legal experts say
Posted on 07/16/2010 5:10:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
An audio recording of Mel Gibson allegedly hurling profanities and making threats to his ex-girlfriend has been generating headlines all week. But there is much debate among legal experts about whether the recording would be allowed in any criminal prosecution of the actor-director.
In the recording released this week by the celebrity news website RadarOnline, the "Lethal Weapon" star is purportedly heard admitting to an assault, telling Russian model and former girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva that she "deserved" to be hit.
Los Angeles County sheriff's officials are conducting a domestic violence investigation into allegations that Gibson harmed Grigorieva during an alleged confrontation in January.
On Thursday, detectives went to court and obtained the recording, which had been filed under seal as part of a child custody battle between Grigorieva and Gibson.
The recording, which appears to have been made during at least one telephone conversation, has not been authenticated. Neither Gibson nor his representatives have commented on the recording or said whether it is of the star.
The volatile conversation, in which the caller uses derogatory terms for women, seems to have been surreptitiously recorded. Legal experts say that's where the recording's admissibility in court becomes murky.
In California, both parties must consent to have a phone conversation recorded. Under normal circumstances, legal experts said, that would make the recording unusable in court, and its recording potentially a crime.
But Dmitry Gorin, a defense attorney and former deputy district attorney, said there are exceptions that allow secret recordings to be used. One, he said, is for victims of violence.
"If she falls in that exception, then [the] recording is, in fact, admissible," Gorin said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The doctored/edited annoying bipolar ravings of demented Mel will never be admissible in a California court.
ahhhhh that’s why she’s saying she didn’t pass on the tape to the media.....
I have changed my mind in 24 hours. Her story is highly suspect, IMO.
Picture...Who knows...you can do a lot with photoshop these days.
Maybe her real teeth are a mess and she wears a cap when modeling. There was a USA TOP model who did that...she had a huge space between her two front teeth.
Oh Mel...you really messed up and probably hurt your former wife pretty bad.
One of my front teeth looked worse than that after I chomped down on a piece of black walnut shell in some ice cream. It was so bad that my dentist had to do a root canal and put a crown on. I do not trust her.
“Photo of Oksana before and after the Mel Gibson punch”
Ouch .she knocked her veneers off .
When I got mine, I was told not to even TRY to bite into a raw carrot those things are delicate
I heard portions of the tape and it sounds a little too contrived for me.
For one, two people arguing would be talking on top of each other, one interrupting the other in the middle of their words. The tapes don’t show that at all.
Secondly, Oksana’s responses sound suspiciously scripted, as if she were reading from a piece of paper or something.
Something does not sound right to me... jut saying.
The two party consent only applies to “confidential conversations”. Whether it was confidential or not depends on the intent of the parties at the time of the conversation. By the way public employeees doing their job don’t notmally have an expectation of privacy- that their conversations are confidential.(few exceptions, doctor, lawyer)
California Cal. Penal Code § 632(a) Statute prohibits the recording of confidential communications without “the consent of all parties.” Evidence obtained in violation of this section may not be used in any judicial proceeding. This prohibition is confined to confidential communications, defined by statute as “any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties there to,” but does not include communications made under any “circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.”
My thought when I first heard one of the tapes was that it could have been practicing a movie script. Who could say it wasn’t?
While it's impossible to predict with certainty what will or will not come in at trial in any California courtroom, you would have to believe it's highly unlikely these tapes come in.
In federal court, it would be clear - the standard is any editions, deletions or changes, makes the tape(s) inadmissible per FRE 901. From what I've read other places, these tapes show clear signs of professional editing and sound mixing, to include fade-ins and fade-outs. This isn't even a close call, and it has nothing to do with all-party consent.
I have no idea what went on between the 2 of them however, those pix do not convince me that she was punched in the mouth as her lips show no sign of splits or bruising plus, those after teeth don’t look like ‘punched’ teeth! JMO.
the veneers on her teeth seem a little longer than the underlying tooth, I wonder why? Wouldn’t that make them unstable? (but would make the front teeth look better with her longer eye teeth)
strickly rumor at this point, but Mel’s camp says he hit her to stop her from shaking the baby “like a ragdoll” and it was her threatening to harm the baby
and the beat goes on....
Here are two stories that echo your thoughts. First, her dentist's office tells a different story than she does. And, the family court referee/judge rules in Mel's favor, apparently unconvinced that Mel posses any threat to the child.
Someone made this point....How come his voice has background noise and hers does not. Hmmmmmm
I listened to it. it is obvious that she was setting him up. The emotionless comments she made were cold and calculating.
The ones that will pay the biggest price for this is the 8 kids.
“the veneers on her teeth seem a little longer than the underlying tooth, I wonder why? Wouldnt that make them unstable? “
Correct....if you look at her tooth (our right side...her left)....the tooth is intact and shorter...
Many older women get caps or veneers because of wear and tear...
Many younger women get caps/veneers...because their teeth are small...or imperfect
Either way.....both groups are elongating the basic tooth structure it’s delicate and easily broken .
that’s a very interesting before/after,esp since the stained teeth are in the before and the shapes of the teeth are totally different as well-
I think she’s probably regretting putting this stuff out to the media....she just thought we would automatically go to her side??....Like we’re brainless???