In Session Brodsky responds to the State’s argument. “I think the major problem is that statement, whatever it may be, from Stacy Peterson is not in evidence. I guess what the State’s asking to do is talk about something without having the statement before the jury…in any event, as you said, the statement here is very specific…that she uttered the word ‘lie’ isn’t really very clear. If the portion of the statement they can get in doesn’t make sense, we can’t make up a fictional statement to make sense. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t; that’s their problem, I guess.” Greenberg joins the defense argument: “There’s no such statement before the jury…there has to be some predicate for the statement, and I don’t know what the basis would be for Stacy saying, ‘I lied to the police’…I don’t know what the basis would be for that statement.” Judge: “Unfortunately, we’re at another instance where the State has made one representation one day, another the second day, and a third when the witness is about to hit the stand…however, I don’t think that I have to revisit my ruling. The statement as to the perfect crime is privileged, and it’s inadmissible . . . I understand the defense objection, but the statement that she did carry out his wishes is going to be admissible.”
about a minute ago
