Thank you so much, Kimi, for finding and posting the whole court opinion.
Regarding the discussion of whether or not Dr. Kernie would be permitted to testify, that was an interesting explanation. It goes to prove that even if I "think" I understand terms like "bolstering" and "cumulative", my understanding of those definitions linguistically apparently isn't the same definition legally, lol! Anyway, I'm glad the expert Dr. Kernie is "in".
I also appreciated the sentence where the judge states that his testimony would be helpful in distinguishing for the jury that the medical care rendered to Garnett in his last hospital admission did not cause Garnett's death. I was actually thinking that the defense might "go there" and attempt to shift blame onto the ICU medical staff. Such as, implying that they "could have" saved Garnett's life "if only" they had done "xyz or pdq". In essence, trying to change the focus or direction of the prosecution from a criminal murder trial to a faux- malpractice case. As in, "It's not Lacey's fault that the doctors couldn't save him."
As to the admissibility of Garnett's out of state medical records, going back to his birth, I thought the explanation was quite clear from the judge.
Medical Records
Such records tend to exclude any natural cause for the death of the alleged victim. These records also explain the circumstances under which the defendant obtained certain prescriptions and medical devices allegedly found in her constructive possession which may have contributed to the childs medical condition at or around the time of his demise.
These records are admissible also because they are inextricably interwoven into the fabric of this case. They illustrate the defendants role as custodian and care giver. This evidence also gives context to the actions of police at the time of the childs death.
I was wondering how they were going to handle explaining to the jury why Garnett had had a feeding tube since age 9 months, if the old medical records were inadmissible. So, it's all in now-- and the patchwork of uncoordinated care Garnett had from state to state will be exposed/ examined as well.
All of this is pretty bad news for Lacey Spears. Pretty much everything prosecutors asked for, including the very damning salt laced feeding tube bag she asked the neighbor to get rid of, is in. It's not a slam dunk case, of course, but it sure is looking bad for Lacey. With the de-escalation of media intensity from no live streaming, I'm hopeful they get a solid jury of reasonable, thoughtful New Yorkers.
The judge ruled opening statements could be recorded and broadcast, as well as closing arguments, so we can look forward to that after jury selection next week. I suppose jury selection will take at least 2-3 days?
