As we enter the third week of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, the Plaintiffs spent Monday finishing and resting their case. The Defendants began their case supporting the constitutionality of Proposition 8, and it is not expected to last beyond this week. After some initial dispute over whether Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Shubert could be called to the stand by the defense, Lisa Keen reported:
The plaintiffs then proceeded to introduce their remaining evidence—a number of videotapes and documents that demonstrate the tactics and messages of the Yes on 8 campaign. The evidence included videotapes of Proposition 8 proponents making often shocking claims against gay people – that they were attempting to “indoctrinate” children to homosexuality, promoting pedophilia, and aiming for the “annihilation of marriage.”
One video showed a young man from an ex-gay group claiming that, if Proposition 8 failed in California, it would have a “domino effect throughout the country.” A young woman sitting next to him said it would mean “pedophiles could marry six, seven, and eight-year olds.” She claimed that marriage equality in Massachusetts enabled a man there to petition for the right to marry a horse.
. . . .
After the plaintiffs submitted their remaining documents, the defense began its case in support of Proposition 8. Their first witness was Kenneth P. Miller, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, a private college outside Los Angeles. The defense offered Miller as an expert in the political power of gays and lesbians — a designation which plaintiffs’ attorney David Boies attacked.
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker already has stated that he is looking for a week-long break after the cases have been presented before hearing closing arguments, so that he can review the trial and ask questions of the lawyers. This move, while unusual, is not all that surprising in light of the fact that Walker began asking questions just a few minutes into Ted Olson’s opening statement three weeks ago.
The trial is to continue on Tuesday.
Law Dork coverage of the trial:
- Supreme Court – Broadcast Stay
- Day One
- Day Two
- Day Three
- Supreme Court – Broadcast Ruling
- Day Four
- Day Five
- Week Two
- Days Six and Seven
- Days Eight and Nine
All Perry coverage at Law Dork can be found here, and my Twitter list of folks tweeting live from the trial can be found here. Liveblogging of the trial can be found at the Courage Campaign’s Prop 8 Trial Tracker and at FireDogLake’s Prop 8 Trial Hub.
Popularity: 8% [?]


Dear Chris,
Thank you for all you do on your blog and, of course, your coverage of the Prop 8 Trial.
I am not a lawyer, (neither is my husband) but I just finished reading all 12 days of the official court transcript (2,592 pages!) and I have a question about the “expert” testimony of Miller and Blankenhorn that I wondered if you could help me understand. (Sorry to leave it as a comment, but my email bounced back at me.)
During Voir Dir and cross examination the Plaintiff Lawyers asked questions about which materials the experts had read before their depositions and after their depositions. They also asked several questions about which materials were provided by their (defendant) lawyers. (The implication seemed to be that the Prop 8 “experts” had not developed their own theories through independent research. It seemed that they had been “fed” their opinions by their own lawyers – if I understand correctly.) Some of the daily trial feeds (trial tracker & Firedoglake) suggested that something about this constitutes a legal “no – no.” It sure seems like a no – no.
Aside from being totally embarrassing, and undermining what little credibility they have, can you help me understand what the nature of that “no – no” is? Does what I mentioned above pretty much cover it?
I know you must be very busy, so I appreciate any light you might shine on this.
Thanks for your time and your great writing,
Jason Zenobia
Portland, OR