Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
This was a clear procedural violation on the part of the defense. There was nothing controversial about the judge's decision to disallow the defense's witness. Looks like Amero's lawyer wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer...  |
I'm sure this is the way the judge saw it as well, but in my mind just putting Horner's name on the witness list in order to refute the prosecution's claim of willful and unlawful should have been enough (discovery) to let him demonstrate why. They surely must have known that he wasn't there to help prove their charges against Amero. It's not like they were being completely blindsided.
Even if the judge felt the prosecution needed more time to respond what's the harm in giving them a few days. The trial was still in progress and this wasn't just a minor infraction, this was for possible life in prison. Not allowing the defense to present crucial evidence because of a disagreement over discovery is probably guranteeing that this will be overturned on appeal.
I have absolutely no first hand knowledge or schooling in regards to the law but from what I have read this case seems to be very unfair. How could the interest of justice be harmed by allowing the jury to see for themslves how the hairstyling site had links to porno popups and how hard it is to stop them?