The defence tried to delay the revealing of the contents of the phones claiming that not everyone who was listed in the ‘chain of custody’ will be appearing in court to testify that they did not compromise the phones.
The prosecution seemed ready and prepared for this attempt by the defence. They had documents and some precedents immediately at the ready.
After some debate, the judge sided with the prosecution and it was deemed that it would be unnecessary to have every single person listed in the chain of custody appear as a witness.
My question is, how did the prosecution know that the defence was going to bring this up? How did the prosecution know to have research at the ready? Is this a topic that the lawyers would have discussed earlier behind closed doors? Or was the prosecution just that well prepared?
Before this got to trial, there would have been a discovery phase. There is a scheduling order that lays out the deadlines of everything prior to trial that must be followed by both sides. Each side has to file a Designation of Experts, which describes every expert, their credentials, and ultimately, the experts' reports are provided to the opposing side (remember, both sides have experts). Also, during the discovery phase, each side has to provide to the other what evidence will be presented at trial.
Each side then has the opportunity to file a motion
in limine and/or a
Daubert motion. These motions are attempts to exclude expert testimony and possible evidence that will be used. There are legal standards that must be met and proven for evidence and experts to be deemed admissible in Court. The other side then files a response/rebuttal to the motion in limine/Daubert motion. There is usually a hearing on these motions prior to the matter going to trial.
Also, prior to trial, each side exchanges exhibits. The only exhibits that can be brought in after trial starts, that have not been disclosed to the other side, are only exhibits that can impeach the testimony of a witness. There are no surprise exhibits in trial. Disclosure is part of due process.
Did you notice that the Judge was reading a Motion when the arguments were being made? IMO, this was the hearing on the Motions (also note that this did not occur while the jury was present), and/or IMO, a motion had been filed prior to trial in regard to this expert and his report, and the prosecution had already defended their position, but the defense wanted to try one more time.
IMO, this information and possibly the Judge's ruling will be reflected on the docket of the case.