LDB: we filed a motion to prohibit from the defense listing ? from witnesses. As to the admissability...it has been our experience so far that council has been asking witnesses things the defendant may or may not have said, there are acceptions for hearsay. For us to repeatedly object to this type of inquirey when council has already been warned. We are asking not to prohibit the question at this juncture but that council be ordered to proffer.
JB: our position is this is an untimely motion. but is timely for them. They can talk about spending the night, innuendos, the bruise...after they get it thought the back...one it is untimely second it limits cross. Certainly there are topics that are sensitive in nature topics that are close to objectionable. And to limit our cross of a witness affects the truth. We all know what we are talking about. They don't need advanced notice. This isn't a scripted events. To limit...providing proffers...I think the defense is significantly prejuiced...I think we have a theory of defense judge and we have a right to explore it...and ask them specific questions if there is an objection the prosecuters are capable of objecting.
HHJP: okay. Chapter 90 of the FL evidence code. Evidence must meet chapter 90. Attempts by the defense to illicit statements by the defendant though the witness. It is self serving. Under three acceptions there are foundation requirements. As of yet there has been no attempt to establish those three requirements. There for the states motion in limeline be proffered will be granted!
Yeah!!!!!!!!!!
