HHJP: Were all these videos made available to the defense and did defense have opportunity to review these?
JB: Yes. Generally speaking, yes. We've had them - that's why I'm raising the objection.
HHJP: We've had numerous hearings - and if memory serves me correctly, the week before we went to Pinnelas County, I offered to hear whatever motions ya'll needed to have heard, and there were motion deadlines -- why were no motions filed objecting to the admissibility -specifically the order provides non-forensic scientific legal motions requiring - there was a discovery cutoff that all motions must be heard I think prior to December 31st 2010.
JB: The answer to that is - in defending this case we have been faced with numerous types of issues - we've had to prioritize those issues and the practice of our craft has been one in which we have addressed more important first and many issues come up at a later time - many things at an initial glance we don't pick up on... the moment I thought there would be an issue - I spoke with LDB - we tried to resolve - I realized we wouldn't have a resolution - we haven't been sitting around doing nothing - litigating tooth and nail for the last 3 years - doing best we can with resources we have - we have not sat on - an issue that has come up - I'm aware of - I brough tit to the proper parties - and I think in a timely fashion. It's not after this evidence has been presented - I don't think it will bre presented for sevearl days off.
HHJP: Let me get to the point. The pretial order specifically provided all motions dealing with non-scientific evidence that required no testimony - these motions should require testimony because videos spoke for themselves should be heard no later than 12-31-10. There are numerous cases stands for the proposition if you fail to provide a motion to suppress in a timely manner you have waived that objection unless there is something you didn't know at that particular time, so.... as always - you can pose an objection - going back & forth for prolonged objections - you can ake your short objection relevancy if you feel it's not relevant or some other thing - but problem with you doing it at this date is simply there is no time to redact the portions that you're talking about. That's why we have deadlines. Ya'll had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 excluding Ms. Finnell - 5 laywers sitting over there who have had ample time since December - we'll take a brief look at it - but you may have waived any objections - it may not be timely - let's move on. Who is the state's next witness?
JB: Yes. Generally speaking, yes. We've had them - that's why I'm raising the objection.
HHJP: We've had numerous hearings - and if memory serves me correctly, the week before we went to Pinnelas County, I offered to hear whatever motions ya'll needed to have heard, and there were motion deadlines -- why were no motions filed objecting to the admissibility -specifically the order provides non-forensic scientific legal motions requiring - there was a discovery cutoff that all motions must be heard I think prior to December 31st 2010.
JB: The answer to that is - in defending this case we have been faced with numerous types of issues - we've had to prioritize those issues and the practice of our craft has been one in which we have addressed more important first and many issues come up at a later time - many things at an initial glance we don't pick up on... the moment I thought there would be an issue - I spoke with LDB - we tried to resolve - I realized we wouldn't have a resolution - we haven't been sitting around doing nothing - litigating tooth and nail for the last 3 years - doing best we can with resources we have - we have not sat on - an issue that has come up - I'm aware of - I brough tit to the proper parties - and I think in a timely fashion. It's not after this evidence has been presented - I don't think it will bre presented for sevearl days off.
HHJP: Let me get to the point. The pretial order specifically provided all motions dealing with non-scientific evidence that required no testimony - these motions should require testimony because videos spoke for themselves should be heard no later than 12-31-10. There are numerous cases stands for the proposition if you fail to provide a motion to suppress in a timely manner you have waived that objection unless there is something you didn't know at that particular time, so.... as always - you can pose an objection - going back & forth for prolonged objections - you can ake your short objection relevancy if you feel it's not relevant or some other thing - but problem with you doing it at this date is simply there is no time to redact the portions that you're talking about. That's why we have deadlines. Ya'll had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 excluding Ms. Finnell - 5 laywers sitting over there who have had ample time since December - we'll take a brief look at it - but you may have waived any objections - it may not be timely - let's move on. Who is the state's next witness?
