In the Huggins case, the defense asked a witness about something the defendant had said (that he shaved his pubic area to get rid of lice, not to avoid giving a pubic hair sample to LE). It was improper hearsay, but it got in. Because the defense had introduced testimony of the defendant in this way, the State was then allowed to impeach that testimony, just as if the defendant had actually testified, by bringing in the defendant's felony convictions.
Here, JB asked a witness (Cindy) about statements Casey had made about the paternity of Caylee (I think), and now the State wants to bring in Casey's felony convictions to impeach that "testimony" of Casey.
I would love to see a transcript, but I doubt that the statements of Casey that JB elicited from Cindy were (1) presented by JB as having been truthful statements by Casey or (2) relevant at all to Casey's defense. If the statements were not presented as having been truthful and/or were not particularly relevant to the defense, then IMO HHJP should not allow the felony conviction information into evidence.
If the statements of Casey that JB elicited from Cindy WERE presented as JB as having been truthful statements by Casey and had something to do with the actual case, then HHJP should allow the felony conviction information into evidence BUT the whole situation will raise the question of ineffective assistance of counsel down the road.
IMO the SA ought to think about it overnight and come in tomorrow morning and say, "You know what, your honor? Never mind about those felony convictions for now," thus either saving JB from his own incompetence or saving HHJP from being overturned on appeal. Chances are, Casey is going to have to testify in this case, because her defense set up a crazy story in the opening statement that only she can support. Why not save the felonies to impeach her then?
