Pink Panther
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2004
- Messages
- 10,700
- Reaction score
- 216
If the judge decides it's better for it not to be used, I'm all for it as I would hate for it to be cause for appeal.
moo
moo
Anybody else saying: Please, please , please, JP let it in!?
Waiting......waiting....
.
.
.
.
.
.
JB: was handed his objection (pest control?! what the...) because he doesn't know how to look them up himeslf
HHJP says: waitill 315.
You know, there's nothing wrong with making an educated approximation of where the tape was, but if the statute is requiring the evidence to be impossible to garner orally, it's hard to see how this can come in. He can testify to it, and make it clear, but JA will need to question carefully. It would be more powerful and certainly easier for the jury to understand visually, but there is an issue of prejudice vs. probative value that is reasonable to consider.
Dr. G. made a comment about the duct tape and it's position, Does anyone remember her exact words?
guys I just do not know about this evidence...it is prejudicial....I mean wow...sigh..i hope if it gets in it doesn't get overturned on appeal.
I just discovered that a single piece of duct tape can cover both my mouth and nose, and I'm an adult.
that and the fact he knows DR.G's testimony just put his client away for good!!
anyone have a picture of her watching that video/time lapse? she looked scary mad to me
Oh man. I think HHJP is considering it.
I wish they wouldn't let it in.
I hope they just make him testify without animation.