borndem
Anglophile & registered demwit
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 19,000
- Reaction score
- 49,711
This trial has inspired me to have "Waiting" inscribed on my tombstone!
:waiting::waiting::waiting::waiting:
This trial has inspired me to have "Waiting" inscribed on my tombstone!
"Parties are discussing what Rev. Schori can/cannot say in front of witnesses. Glasgow wants clarification."
{ I'll bet he does want clarification. This is another minefield for the state today. The DT is going to be looking hard for a mistrial from now on, imo. ]
judge upset with prosecution for allegedly misleading him on what Schori will testify to. Proceedings put on hold for moment.
[ nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo]
what???
what is with this Judge?
I can't stand this Judge.
WHY??? How could he have been misled about anything?
In Session Judge Burmila has taken the bench. Glasgow announces that the first witness will indeed be Neil Schori, and wants clarification as to what he may or may not say. Attorney Brodsky notes that there are issues of marital and clerical privilege at play with Schori. Judge: I dont think we addressed the issue of no one will ever know [which Drew allegedly told Stacy]. The judge once again overrules the defenses marital privilege objection to this testimony.
Whew!! We got past that one.... Is this the same judge? Quick, somebody, check his nameplate!
Burmila: Did Schori say Stacy was told to lie to the police, or was it inferred that she should lie? #DrewPeterson
“We have a right to have this witness tell the gist of what he was told, the words ‘perfect crime’ were used . . [ who said this?]
#drewpeterson coached her for hours.” Judge: “We’ve revisited this on a number of occasions. The issue is what is legally admissible.
The judge continued to say: "Not what makes the State’s case better, or what makes the witness more believable. #drewpeterson
In Session Brodsky and Glasgow continue to argue over the exact terminology that Schori will be able to say. Glasgow claims that my hands are tied, based on the judges prior rulings. We have a right to have this witness tell the gist of what he was told . . . the words perfect crime were used . . . he [the defendant] coached her for hours. Judge: Weve revisited this on a number of occasions . . . the issue is what is legally admissible, not what makes the States case better, or what makes the witness more believable . . . I was told that the testimony was going to be that she was told to lie. This will be the perfect crime is covered by marital privilege. I didnt make up marital privilege . . . now youre telling me thats not really what the statement was. I guess we have to backtrack: did Rev. Schori say that Stacy Peterson told him that she was told to lie to the police? Glasgow: Yes. Judge: You know what . . . get the transcript of the argument that was made by me on the State . . . Stop! I want the transcript before we go any further. I want to make sure were crystal clear here as to what I was told by the State. When you find that, well reconvene.
[/B]
I don't understand why they wait until they get into court to refresh their memories on this stuff.
The judge knew this was coming up, the state knew this was coming up. Why didn't they review all this last night so they would be ready?
Why does the judge have to leave the bench every time a problem or a piece of paper is needed? It just takes more time to have him running back and forth to his chambers. Maybe if he hung around the lawyers would get their act together quicker.