[AndyTheBear]

The article seems to say that normal cross-examination was allowed, but that normal cross-examination can only include asking questions about what the prosecution had already asked the witness about. From what I have gleaned as a layman this seems to be a normal court rule (at least it was on Perry Mason). It seems what was denied was the expansion of the topic of cross examination into the general corruption of the FBI.

That said, I think the case obviously should simply be thrown out and done and a full on investigation from an independent council should be ordered as its blatantly obvious that this was a political persecution and framing operation by the DOJ and senior FBI members.

However, the particular ruling was not something that goes against normal court procedure...rather it seems to just be following routine procedure in what has become a farce.

[cuz1961]

No mr.bear, I don’t think so.

Prosecution is bound to provide any

exculpatory evidence

In criminal law, exculpatory evidence is evidence, such as a statement, tending to excuse, justify, or absolve the alleged fault or guilt of a defendant.

In other words, the evidence is favorable to the defendant

.