10:32
No Jury
HHJBP: It is quite evident that an instructions should be given. We have two trained lawyers who can't agree. How can we expect the Jury to understand.
According to Williams v State, Dudley v State and Pierce v State the Court will give the following amended instruction:
The testimony concerning the statements of GA testified to by this witness KH may be considered by you only as they might impeach the other testimony of GA and for no other purpose. These statements may not be used by you as proof of how the victim in this case may have died, and you are not to use this testimony as to the defendant's guilt or innocence.
JB: The Jury may be able to infer that GA lied. The Jury then can decide to use that toward determining the guilt or innocence of ICA. We are not putting witnesses on the stand for no reason. He objects to the last two sentences.
HHJBP: Supreme Court Justice Jonas - prior inconsistant statements - limiting instruction proper. The jury will be instructed that they can believe all or any part of a witness's testimony and they can consider whether a witness gave an inconsistent testimony. To not instruct this Jury who are not lawyers, and we have seen that even the lawyers can't agree on what the law is and what it means. If we get to that stage - MY PAPER WILL BE GRADED.
Is anone else going to ask her any more questions? No.