"2 The Defense had issues with how Indictment was written. Not sure what the issue is."
"#2 No am not referring to proceeding closing arguments, but to 2nd day of trial, (link for reference is post #335 thread 1)"
The issues about how the indictment was written were from closing arguments. Item 2, answered.
What you now label as #2 and some tweets was the issue previously marked as 3 ("3 I remember at one point they wanted the Indictment entered in as evidence. Judge ruled no, that was just an accusation by Grand Jury and not from law enforcement iirc. Jmho)
Those tweets in question were referencing the defense's attempt to make the state's detectives defend the wording in the indictment, as if they had written it. (For better understanding, you should look at how others tweeted the same info, in your post 336).
So the first thing they did was just ask them to answer to the wording of the indictment itself, which the state objected because the indictment was not entered as evidence. So then the defense tried to have the indictment entered as evidence into the trial record so they could then get the detectives to answer questions about it. But, it is not evidence but rather an opinion/accusation by the grand jury, so the judge said no.
Frankly, the defense was trying to pull a fast one here legally. But the prosecutor objected, and the judge properly sided with the state. It's not even a borderline decision, legally. The indictment was NOT written by any of the detectives, but rather by jurors, so it's not the detectives' words or thoughts being expressed in it, nor is it evidence of anything other than the grand jurors' collective opinions on what EA did. And in regards to the detectives, at best it would be "hearsay" of someone else's opinion.
The chance that this is put into an appeal is essentially zero - the defense would have to be doltish to put legal nonsense like this in an appeal, and I trust they aren't that stupid.
"#2 No am not referring to proceeding closing arguments, but to 2nd day of trial, (link for reference is post #335 thread 1)"
The issues about how the indictment was written were from closing arguments. Item 2, answered.
What you now label as #2 and some tweets was the issue previously marked as 3 ("3 I remember at one point they wanted the Indictment entered in as evidence. Judge ruled no, that was just an accusation by Grand Jury and not from law enforcement iirc. Jmho)
Those tweets in question were referencing the defense's attempt to make the state's detectives defend the wording in the indictment, as if they had written it. (For better understanding, you should look at how others tweeted the same info, in your post 336).
So the first thing they did was just ask them to answer to the wording of the indictment itself, which the state objected because the indictment was not entered as evidence. So then the defense tried to have the indictment entered as evidence into the trial record so they could then get the detectives to answer questions about it. But, it is not evidence but rather an opinion/accusation by the grand jury, so the judge said no.
Frankly, the defense was trying to pull a fast one here legally. But the prosecutor objected, and the judge properly sided with the state. It's not even a borderline decision, legally. The indictment was NOT written by any of the detectives, but rather by jurors, so it's not the detectives' words or thoughts being expressed in it, nor is it evidence of anything other than the grand jurors' collective opinions on what EA did. And in regards to the detectives, at best it would be "hearsay" of someone else's opinion.
The chance that this is put into an appeal is essentially zero - the defense would have to be doltish to put legal nonsense like this in an appeal, and I trust they aren't that stupid.