This whole day has been one of the craziest things I have ever seen even as a layperson to watching trial footage.
Alex Spiro ripped the prosecution apart in a way I've never seen outside of TV and movies. Everyone he cross examined was very obviously on their back foot from the start, not to mention that he was at some points reviewing documents in real time while doing his arguments.
The prosecutors hail Mary attempt to establish that no intentional misconduct took place was both absurd and ultimately more damaging and frankly useless.
I cannot believe this woman voluntarily took the stand after the judge explicitly said she didn't need to and wasn't being asked to. It almost seemed like she could feel that the judge was pissed off, but if she could only understand how it was just an unfortunate series of MANY events that caused her to not understand that the evidence WAS material and needed to be disclosed.
From my understanding of the judges comments upon dismissal, even if the failure to disclose was not intentional (it very probably was) this "error" would still rise to the level of a dismissal with prejudice being legally warranted.
bluechip1996 on July 13rd, 2024 at 02:30 UTC »
Clint Eastwood in the back row is incredulous
LeoLaDawg on July 13rd, 2024 at 03:27 UTC »
He just.... called him a cock sucker in court? Does anyone already have the transcript so I can be lazy and not look myself?
SouthBendNewcomer on July 13rd, 2024 at 04:41 UTC »
This whole day has been one of the craziest things I have ever seen even as a layperson to watching trial footage.
Alex Spiro ripped the prosecution apart in a way I've never seen outside of TV and movies. Everyone he cross examined was very obviously on their back foot from the start, not to mention that he was at some points reviewing documents in real time while doing his arguments.
The prosecutors hail Mary attempt to establish that no intentional misconduct took place was both absurd and ultimately more damaging and frankly useless.
I cannot believe this woman voluntarily took the stand after the judge explicitly said she didn't need to and wasn't being asked to. It almost seemed like she could feel that the judge was pissed off, but if she could only understand how it was just an unfortunate series of MANY events that caused her to not understand that the evidence WAS material and needed to be disclosed.
From my understanding of the judges comments upon dismissal, even if the failure to disclose was not intentional (it very probably was) this "error" would still rise to the level of a dismissal with prejudice being legally warranted.