3 ms·
I'm not 100% sure on the timetables, but one reason for it could be that defense's counsel was getting sustained objections for cross-examining outside of scope
by defective 12y ago
I'm not 100% sure on the timetables, but one reason for it could be that defense's counsel was getting sustained objections for cross-examining outside of scope. In essence, defense was trying to use a government witness as their own witness to prove other points.
The judge didn't allow this, but the defense said that they had been able to use opposing witnesses in this manner before. So, while it may have been a dumb idea in the first place, the logic may have been that they didn't think they would need a witness until that surprise.
- tptacek 12y agoIn the filing introducing the two witnesses, the defense failed to concretely specify what they'd be testifying about. A late-game strategic switch to using their own experts is one thing; being coy about what those witnesses would testify is another.
- defective 12y agoOh yeah, that's true. Well, consider me convinced that it was appeal fodder.