05-13-2024, 11:58 AM
(05-13-2024, 11:54 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: I believe it did, but it's irrelevant. Whether he did or not is not why he's on trial. This is why her testimony going into detail should have been stricken and halted immediately. The judge only let her continue so she could help form opinions in the juror's minds.
The judge didn't let it go unchecked. He sustained every objection the defense rose to her testimony and it was stricken. The reason it wasn't declared a mistrial is because that testimony was irrelevant.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
