Replies

Take it easy. The judge is referring to her as a witness because the law governing failure on the part of the State to disclose evidence refers to "witnesses", not to "victims". The judge (and the prosecution) are trying to give any appeals court the necessary "buzzwords" to save the case from reversal here.

I don't know the law in Kansas, but in GA it's a pretty safe bet that when the prosecutors and the police investigating the case didn't know the undisclosed evidence from a witness, it's allowed in if the defense is given time to inspect the new evidence before it's given to the jury. This little gambit would not cut much ice here, don't think it will in Kansas either. Plus there's the wonderful saving grace of "overwhelming evidence". If the error wouldn't have affected the verdict, it may be error but it's not harmful error. Hopefully, that's what this is.

The judge (and the prosecution) are trying to give any appeals court the necessary "buzzwords" to save the case from reversal here.

I understand that. It just frustrates the h*ll out of me that they have to do that. And it frustrates the h*ll out of me that there would be a possibility of reversal just because of the circumstances. The poor woman didn't want to broadcast her condition to the world. Oh that there were more of us with her modesty. But when she realized, by accident, that it was relevant to the case - it becomes a tool for the defense. What crapola. (PS I'm not yelling at you, I'm yelling at our system of law that has been hijacked and convoluted by defense attorneys.) fsf