In Session Judge: “If the murder happened at 3:00 am, what is the relevance of where he was Sunday afternoon? You answer is ‘just in case’ he needed to be alibied?” Glasgow: “This would give him alibi for the morning.” Judge: “Just in case no time of death could be determined, he needs as much of an alibi as possible?” Glasgow: “Yes.” Greenberg: “I don’t even know where to begin with that . . . he has to be alibied for Saturday night, and Sunday, and Monday? I don’t get that. What I’m hearing here is the State has no theory about what happened here. They want to put in the kitchen sink, everything they can, and then say ‘We don’t know what happened, but boy, he wanted her dead. So he must have done it.’ That’s what I’m hearing here . . . if they’re going to say the death occurred on Sunday, between 9:00 in the morning and 6:00 at night, then maybe they’d be relevant. Because there’s no dispute that he was at all these places . . . but otherwise, it’s not relevant. And it’s worrying me a little bit that they can’t give you a straight answer on these things.” Judge: “The court took the information into account, and made a ruling as to the admissibility of this evidence, as it related to the defendant’s claim that he wanted to be elsewhere when the murder occurred . . . given the fact that the State has argued to me and intimated to this jury that this crime occurred in the early morning hours . . . I’m unconvinced that the State’s argument that these documents are relevant to where he was the next afternoon . . . given the stance of the State that the defendant alone is responsible for this, Mr. Magliano’s testimony would be irrelevant on this point. But if they present other evidence as to the relevancy of where he was that Sunday afternoon, I will reverse myself . . . if that’s the case, I’ll revisit it.”
