06-24-2013, 06:41 PM
(06-24-2013, 06:29 PM)Adub Wrote: Because the Judge is good. And she is not allowing the attorneys to make speaking objections. If an attorney objects, they have to state the grounds for the objection and STFU!
I guess this is the best that the defense could come up with when put on the spot. The defense fucked-up. And tried to squirm out of it. I think. I will have to go back and listen.
Defense objected to the previous call being played on grounds of "relevance".
I agree with you, the relevance is obvious. And, the judge's ruling will be a very important one.
Not til after the jury was removed did the "previous bad acts" language come into the equation by the defense. Imo, the defense knows that the previous call is relevant to state of mind. But, they wanna argue that it's not "substantially" relevant and could be more prejudicial to their client than it is relevant or valuable to the truth of the case. JMO.
The attorneys will be arguing the matter again in court at 8:30 a.m. EST tomorrow (5:30 a.m. for us, yikes) outside of the jury. I don't know if those arguments will be in open or closed court; hope we can see it.
The jury is scheduled to be back in court tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. EST.