WindyCityGirl
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 498
- Reaction score
- 0
The first witness was a joke and now this? This isn't a strong ending. I am very disappointed that the Kathleen's attorney is not going to testify too. Stipulations can be pointed and powerful, but I would have liked to have heard him answer to extensive questioning by the prosecution
In Session Connor: This reflects his ability to fool someone like Sgt. Deel. Judge: The admissibility of this evidence goes to the defendants knowledge . . . he would be aware, I suppose even 20 years later, of what somebody would generally look for in a crime scene. But the State would still have to make inferences to the jury that the crime scene was altered; thats another issue whatsoever . . . the information that he would know how to these special holds is unsupported in the record whatsoever . . . so that portion of this witness testimony is barred. As far as the defendants training as a crime technician . . . that information could be relevant to the jury . . . so that aspect of this is going to be admissible. Greenberg: But they want to argue his knowledge from a certificate, without any supportive information. Connor: The certificate speaks for itself; he WAS an evidence technician . . . I think the jurors can use their common sense . . . the document speaks for itself; thats an issue of weight. Judge: I think the States entitled to show that he took that class, and that the Bolingbrook Police Department thought he was proficient enough to be appointed to that position. Greenberg: Were going to need a continuance, to get the underlying documents . . . we dont even have our files here on this stuff. I dont know if we can even find out what he was taught. Thats like saying that when I graduated from law school I was qualified to be a criminal defense attorney. I was not. I may still not be. Judge: No comment. (LAUGHTER)
In Session Judge: Youve got the weekend. I dont know if you need a continuance.