Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
The article says the prosecution wasn't given proper access to the expert's testimony before the trial (discovery, they call it). I don't see anything improper about excluding testimony when the rules about testimony are so flagrantly violated. Discovery is very important.
|
I guess I don't understand this discovery requirement. If Horner was on the witness list shouldn't the prosecution have known that he would dispute their claim that her actions were willful and unlawful? Does his testimony have to be revealed beforehand?
It seems to me that the prosecution should have had a reasonable expectation that the computer expert would attempt to demonstrate what he claimed happened. Even if the judge thought the prosecution needed time to prepare a response, what's wrong with giving them a day or two, after all 40 years of a person's life is at stake.
I can't see how justice is served by not allowing the jury to see what happened and how these popups occur from the websites visited.