Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Nov 4 2021 11:09am)
This is wrong. In America we have an oppositional legal system. It is on both sides to present a case using every trick in the book, and it's generally on the opponent to object.
@ the bold, they tried to get the evidence in, and it was rejected. Seems like the court system worked the way it should have. Glad to see you're still a dishonest hack.
They sandbagged the defense on the CO evidence. The prosecution has a responsibility to disclose all relevant evidence during discovery, and they didn't. The defense then spent months researching the evidence and had a significant portion of their arguments premised on the unknown CO levels in the blood. Then the prosecution tried to introduce the evidence, and it was denied on the basis of violating discovery. This leads to multiple issues:
1) The very fact they tried to get the evidence in despite it being a clear violation of discovery is misconduct. Prosecutors aren't supposed to be seeing how much cheating they can sneak past a judge, that's the point of what I just said in the last post.
2) The defense was significant disadvantaged in developing their theories of the event because they had incomplete data despite it being available to the prosecution the entire time. They spent months in planning and weren't able to base their defense on a complete set of facts
3) In a case this high profile and with jurors not sequestered, there is a high chance that jurors were exposed to information about the trial during deliberations despite the judge's warnings, in which case they may have learned about the CO theory being wrong.
Again, under the idealized concept of the justice system, defense lawyers should be zealously advocating for their client even if they know they are being misleading or lying or are indeed guilty, while the burden is on the prosecution to produce incontrovertible facts that don't play upon doubts or prejudices.
Instead, we routinely see prosecutors for the state in pretty much every case that goes to trial operate by working as hard as they can to bend the rules, sneak in every illegal tactic and phoney evidence and appeals to bias possible.
To give another example, look how just yesterday the rittenhouse prosecutors attempted to admit a video which had no probative value on facts not already covered in other tapes, solely because the narrator kept referring to rittenhouse and his fellows as a "militia". They even had the video file named "militia" and timestamps on each point they said "militia", in anticipation that the judge would strike it down, as he did, for being obvious hearsay. And then tried to get him to allow it but bleeping the word militia, even though any listener with a brain would obviously know what word was used, to have the exact same effect. And only after the judge first chewed him out in public and then again in chambers they returned with a heavily edited video under another name and removing sections with the word militia entirely.
If prosecutors were only seeking to base their case upon facts and logic, they wouldn't be so obviously trying to break the rules of evidence to bring in something that serves only prejudicial value.
But of course, """liberals""" openly salivate at these kinds of ploys. I bet the ACLU lawyers go and masturbate in a broom closet every time a prosecutor tries to introduce hearsay into a trial as long as its against a cop or white kid