- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 2,536
On a legal note, if prosecutors had been allowed to try TM & SM together on these charges, Bri's testimony about what SM said to HE during the payphone call would have been admissible, correct? Since SM would be there to defend himself.
I don't really understand why the SC supreme court didn't allow them to be tried together. So much money has already been spent trying this case; it made sense on so many levels. What was the legal reason SC supreme court denied their request?
The Judge said “if I allowed it, it was an error” regarding allowing Brianna to testify to the content of the call in trial 1, as it was heresay.
Unfortunately, I agree - now, of course it’s heresay, without a doubt. The only question is whether it should be allowed as an excited utterance (excited utterances can be allowed despite being heresay).
Strangely, he allowed it in the first trial, so I’m unsure why he flip-flopped, but whether it is an excited utterance is an interesting proposition. I would say no, unfortunately, but that’s just my opinion