But why would an FBI agent bring up anything that is not relevant to the case?I think the phrase “that is not relevant” is the key here.
Jmo
Because it's "not relevant or is for the purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401"?Can someone please explain to me why the P would want any geofencing conducted by FBI Koran thrown out? I am so confused. Again.
Pic related:
View attachment 500415
9. Any reference to geofencing and/or any testimony from Kevin Horan about geofencing or the findings from any geofence search that is not relevant or is for the purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401. IRE 401. Burden is on the opponent to show why it is relevant. Mullins v. State, 646 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. 1995). Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Rolston v. State, 81 N.E.3d 1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Evidence may be excluded if it confuses the issues.
Source:
Adobe Acrobat
Paid witness. We have seen cases where experts testify to the very limited scope they are presented with from either side.But why would an FBI agent bring up anything that is not relevant to the case?
I think the phrase “that is not relevant” is the key here.
Jmo
There's lots in an investigation that winds up not being relevant to the defendant on trial. It's an investigation that lasted over 6 years, lots of dead ends that have no relevance to RA.But why would an FBI agent bring up anything that is not relevant to the case?
So you’re saying the FBI agent is going to be a witness for the defense? (Along with Click)Paid witness. We have seen cases where experts testify to the very limited scope they are presented with from either side.
Well let's consider this. Who are the 3 dots? Let's say it's the couple under the bridge arguing and FSG. If the dots were identified and the users questioned and deemed not suspects... why introduce this to the jury?
Not sure in the least bit so just assuming off the top of the dome. I believe the D has a geofence expert. At least I remember seeing either they wanted one or had one. Their witness could focus on those 3 dots to cause reasonable doubt.So you’re saying the FBI agent is going to be a witness for the defense? (Along with Click)
Will the P have their own geofencing expert from the FBI? I assume the FBI wouldn’t have 2 agents contradicting each other? Or is the P going to throw out the geofencing data?
I would assume to the judge. Keeps the distractions to the minimum.According to whom, though? Nick McLeland because it may hurt his chances of winning the case?
This is such a dangerous precedent to set if he wins this.
IMO MOO
Oh it’s going to be in. State is just asking for relevant to be inThe same investigators who lied in the PCA?
I'd want the geofence evidence in.
IMO MOO
Because the jury is the trier of fact, not the judge. Those three dots have to be proven to be who they are, which is a fact question.Well let's consider this. Who are the 3 dots? Let's say it's the couple under the bridge arguing and FSG. If the dots were identified and the users questioned and deemed not suspects... why introduce this to the jury?
Or the phone was not working. Two options listed. One emphasized in effort to confuse. Big surprise.Oh man.. 2nd crime scene true?
22.The exculpatory report the defense received on Friday, April 26, 2024 (17 days before trial begins) provides evidence that the victims were not at the crime scene on February 13, 2017.
ACCUSED’S REPLY TO THE STATE’S REPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL
Yup just have to read the whole thing. Franks 4.0. DENIED.Or the phone was not working. Two options listed. One emphasized in effort to confuse. Big surprise.
JMO
What did the investigators lie about in the PCA? A nd what's your proof for that, the FM?The same investigators who lied in the PCA?
I'd want the geofence evidence in.
IMO MOO