While I have absolutely no sympathy for Condit & his attentions to Levy, probing into his intimate relations with her isn’t a part of the murder trial.
He is not on trial.
The other creep is.
While there are 2 creeps in the courtroom at one time, this is out of bounds for the prosecutor to be asking, IMO. I would not have been nearly as polite as Condit.
No, Condit is not on trial. But, the defense attorney for "the other creep" is trying to create reasonable doubt that her client committed the crime.
With no physical evidence and a dubious confession, all she has to do is plant the seed of of doubt in the jury -- that maybe Condit really did it and her client is the fall guy.
If we assume that Condit is innocent of this crime and the other creep is guilty: Condit just made it more difficult to convict the other creep. Condit is acting like he is hiding something -- even admitting a relationship with Levy wouldn't have done as much damage to the prosecution.
Whether or not you would be as polite as Condit, he wasn’t sitting at a lunch counter having a casual conversation with the prosecutor and defense counsel.
He was called to testify at a murder trial and the judge obviously permitted him to be called in, and permitted these questions to be asked.
Therefore, unless there was a valid objection to the question upheld by the judge, Mr. Condit should have been instructed to answer. Or at least if either attorney insisted.
It is not relevant to the prosecution. But it is relevant to the defense because their job is to raise reasonable doubt. Pointing to other potential assailants who may have a motive to kill the victim. An illicit affair raises the spectre of such a motive.
They’ve got NOTHING....NOTHING on the immigrant...no evidence whatsoever!! I still think it was the EVIL brother of Condit and his other brother with Condit’s approval, of course! Just my opinion.