From: ahk@chinet.com
BTR1701 wrote:
>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.
I see. Thanks.
>>>>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.
Fair enough. Police showed him the drugs.
>>>>. . .
>>>>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.
Got it. Price shouldn't have been allowed to recover from the lie.
>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.
That makes sense.
>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.
Good point.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
