From: atropos@mac.com   
      
   On Jan 17, 2026 at 11:11:13 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman""    
   wrote:   
      
   > BTR1701  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Jan 15, 2026 at 8:48:40 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Which makes sense. Just because you can't prove someone else did it,   
   >> shouldn't preclude you from showing the jury how the crime could have   
   >> happened without you.   
   >   
   > Fair enough. If the third party is named in the defense's theory, how   
   > closely connected to the crime does the named party have to be?   
      
   You can't directly accuse someone of committing the crime with no foundation,   
   at least in Texas where I went to law schoolin', but you can allege "someone"   
   could have done x, y, or z.   
   >   
   >>> In the stupidest trial moment, the son and not the police is used to   
   >>> introduce the drugs even though the son never saw them. He just saw the   
   >>> duffel bag. The defense rightly objects that it's speculative.   
   >   
   >> Except it wasn't speculative. Price asked him what the police found and he   
   >> answered factually: the drugs. There was no speculation there. It was a   
   >> bizarre objection which was sustained for no other reason than the judge was   
   >> a   
   >> graduate of the Law & Order Judicial Academy. But yes, the detectives should   
   >> be the ones introducing that evidence.   
   >   
   > Price's theory is that the drugs and duffel bag belonged to the   
   > defendant, which Brady's son couldn't testify about.   
      
   True, but that wasn't what the defense objected to. She specifically objected   
   when Price asked what the police found and the defendant answered: the drugs.   
   *That* wasn't speculation and the objection should have been overruled.   
      
   > I wanted the   
   > evidence introduced so that the jury could understand the time line.   
   > First introduce the video showing the victim removing the duffel bag   
   > from the defendant's home. Then have the police testify about the   
   > discovery of the drugs in the duffel bag. Then have the son testify that   
   > he had never seen the duffel bag in the apartment before its discovery   
   > by the police. The son would not be speculating whom the drugs belonged   
   > to.   
   >   
   > If Price had done that, there couldn't have been an objection as   
   > everybody is testifying to what he knows.   
   >   
   >>> It goes to the prosecution's theory of the crime that was the motive   
   >>> for the murder. Gosh, it's kind of important to get right.   
   >   
   >>> Tne defendant does a nice job explaining away the forensic evidence.   
   >>> They need a better alibi from the son.   
   >   
   >>> Lt. Brady figures out that her son lied. He'd left the girl and got   
   >>> drunk. There's video evidence of him in the bar. He changes his   
   >>> testimony on the stand.   
   >   
   >> But only *after* the prosecution rested its case. I have no idea how   
   >> Price was able to call him back to the stand for more direct testimony   
   >> after he rested his case. Maybe there's also a Law & Order School of   
   >> Criminal Procedure that teaches either party can just stand up and call   
   >> witnesses whenever they want.   
   >   
   > I was going to ask about that. I could see the son being recalled to   
   > rebut testimony given by the defendant. But that's not what he did.   
   > Instead, he rebutted his own testimony, having lied on the stand.   
   >   
   > Is there any procedure for the prosecutor to expose the lie made by his   
   > own witness?   
      
   The state would inform the judge and the defense of the new evidence and if   
   the state had already rested, it would be up to the defense if they wanted to   
   call him back to the stand to impeach him. But in this case, impeaching him   
   for the lie would also establish his alibi and torpedo their defense so they   
   probably wouldn't do that. The judge could allow further direct testimony on   
   her own motion but that would be exceedingly rare.   
      
   >>> Odelya Halevi does not appear.   
   >   
   >> I didn't even notice until well after I'd finished watching the episode.   
   >   
   > When she's not on the episode, the staging is different. Price stands in   
   > the well of the court in front of the table while questioning to   
   > distract from the lack of a second chair.   
   >   
   >> It would be nice if they'd occasionally give the second chair eye candy   
   >> lawyer the opportunity to try a case on her own on this show. 27 seasons   
   >> and the girl never gets to do anything more than arraignments.   
   >   
   > Good point.   
      
   They don't even have to give her the whole case. Just let her question a   
   witness or two. That's the way it works in real life. If a case is important   
   or complicated enough to have a second chair, the state will split the   
   workload, with each lawyer questioning and cross-examining half the witnesses   
   and the other lawyer taking the other half. The "first chair" attorney decides   
   the theory of the case and develops the overall strategy but that doesn't mean   
   he does all the work while the second chair just sits there doing nothing but   
   looking pretty.   
      
   Notice how only the prosecution in the world of Law & Order has a second   
   chair. There's only ever one lawyer at the defense table.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)