Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 11,860
- Reaction score
- 206,521
It speaks volumes that the Defense can't reach the threshold even for a hearing on their attempts to confuse, obfuscate, misdirect.
There are criteria for a third-party SODDI defense. They haven't met it.
There are criteria for motions, criteria for hearings. There's criteria for experts, evidence, exhibits. Has to be relevant, among others.
Not every defendant has a workable "defense". This Defense will have an opportunity to cross examine every State's witness, challenge testimony, elicit doubt, niggle credibility.
There will be limits to what they can introduce, which is as it should be. The State has limits too (the State already streamlined their case in chief to accommodate the original three week schedule). If RA has an episode or history of DV, for instance, the judge might rule that it's not only prejudicial it's unfairly prejudicial and disallow it. He's not on trial for that, falls under that 'bad acts' umbrella. Some of his confessions could be thrown out, that is if the State intends to introduce them. There may be limits to what exhibits (crime scene and autopsy photos, for instance) get in and how and whether they're blurred or black-barred. If other trials are indicative, the State won't be allowed to overload crime photos, for added shock value, and in a perfect world, both sides work together to reach agreements/stipulations outside of court so the trial is organized, orderly, and ultimately fair.
JMO
There are criteria for a third-party SODDI defense. They haven't met it.
There are criteria for motions, criteria for hearings. There's criteria for experts, evidence, exhibits. Has to be relevant, among others.
Not every defendant has a workable "defense". This Defense will have an opportunity to cross examine every State's witness, challenge testimony, elicit doubt, niggle credibility.
There will be limits to what they can introduce, which is as it should be. The State has limits too (the State already streamlined their case in chief to accommodate the original three week schedule). If RA has an episode or history of DV, for instance, the judge might rule that it's not only prejudicial it's unfairly prejudicial and disallow it. He's not on trial for that, falls under that 'bad acts' umbrella. Some of his confessions could be thrown out, that is if the State intends to introduce them. There may be limits to what exhibits (crime scene and autopsy photos, for instance) get in and how and whether they're blurred or black-barred. If other trials are indicative, the State won't be allowed to overload crime photos, for added shock value, and in a perfect world, both sides work together to reach agreements/stipulations outside of court so the trial is organized, orderly, and ultimately fair.
JMO