[editor-surveyor]

"Are you saying that the rules of evidence were violated by the trial judge..."

The transcripts are sealed, so nothing can be totally ascertained, but based on comments by those that were participants, much evidence wsa not presented, and much of what was presented was technically not useable by the jury because it was given by participants whose truthfulness had been brought into question by grants of immunity.

[rednesss]

The transcripts are not sealed, they have been requested and the audio tapes are being transcribed. I've read the trial lasted 3 weeks. My Mom had to request a transcript of her divorce proceeding, only 2 1/2 days of testimony, it was a couple hundred pages, cost hundreds of dollars, and took 2 months to get. Every page of the transcription must be sworn by affidavit to be completely accurate by the authorized court reporter. I would think that they take some time to insure their accuracy.

[erton1]

The trial transcripts are not sealed. Everyone is waiting for them to be finished by the court reporter. How can testimony be "technically" not usable by the jury? All evidence that is admitted by the judge can be used by the jury. The jury, not the judge determines the truthfulness and credibility of the witnesses and their testimony. This is true in all trials. The jury was aware of the immunity granted the witness in this case. That does not mean the testimony is not admissible or should not be used by the jury. Only that the jury can take into consideration the grant of immunity when weighing the credibility of the witness and believe all, some or none of the testimony.