This is a catch up from the earlier tweets.
In Session Greenberg and Glasgow continue to argue the issue. Connor and Brodsky then join the fray. Ultimately, Judge Burmila makes his ruling: “I think we’ve addressed the issue of the facial unreliability of this statement on more than one occasion. Judge White heard this testimony, and determined that this testimony was unreliable . . . now, the Court has been informed that at the time he testified they were in possession of information that the date was wrong . . . even without knowing that, Judge White found his testimony to be unreliable. Now, the State told the defense that this individual’s testimony would be consistent with the police report of Oct. 30. The police report is crystal clear there were two different conversations, one at Denny’s and one at the residence. The State’s Attorney now informs the Court that there was a scrivener’s error . . . that’s not the way discovery works in a criminal case. In addition to that, the date changed twice . . . a second change within one hour or so of him approaching the witness stand. Taking all these things into account . . . the discovery violation, the misinformation . . . it might seem that you let him come up here and testify to whatever the current version is, and then allow him to be impeached. But it does not work that way . . . I now find his testimony to raise to the level of a due process violation . . . and this witness is barred.”
7 minutes ago
In Session With that, Judge Burmila has banned any further testimony from Scott Rossetto. He orders the State to produce a new witness, and sends for the jurors. However, before the jury enters, attorney Brodsky brings up another matter, regarding a life insurance policy on the life of Kathy Savio. “I don’t see the relevancy of bringing that before the jury . . . there’s very, very little probative value.” Connor responds, says that the witness in question would only testify as to the statements made to him by the defendant. Brodsky continues to insist that this testimony would be more prejudicial than probative, and should be excluded. Judge: “As to the defendant’s statements, I find that they are relevant, and they are admissible . . . so the defendant’s objections are overruled, and those statements are admissible.”
about a minute ago
