[Iwo Jima]

Why would a defense counsel stipulate to such crucial information for which there is no evidence? Even if you think that it is true, make them prove it. Much helpful information can come out of cross-examination of the "experts."

Here in Houston we have had serious problems with our crime lab just making stuff up. Time after time, it turns out that the defense attorney never even bothered to challenge what the prosecution said the results were. They just accepted as true whatever the prosecution chose to tell them was done and the results. Then they pressured their clients to plead guilty based on the "certainty" that such "incontrovertible evidence" would send them to jail. Sometimes, not only were the test results not as represented, there was never even a test done!

Far too many criminal defense attorneys are just too lazy -- intellectually, physically, and morally -- too get adversarial with the prosecution.

[calcowgirl]

Why would a defense counsel stipulate to such crucial information for which there is no evidence? Even if you think that it is true, make them prove it. Much helpful information can come out of cross-examination of the "experts."

I believe that will be one of the lingering questions. It makes no sense to me. The government has the duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt... make them do it.

Here in Houston we have had serious problems with our crime lab just making stuff up. ... Sometimes, not only were the test results not as represented, there was never even a test done!

That is frightening on many levels.

Far too many criminal defense attorneys are just too lazy -- intellectually, physically, and morally -- too get adversarial with the prosecution.

I don't know what it is with these attorneys. Even in the testimony, I don't understand why they don't follow up on a line of questioning. So far, Antcliff seems to be the sharpest from the defense team, to me. Stillinger is all over the place. Gonzalez seems like a bully and Kanof comes off as a witch. Maybe defense counsel was just way out of their league, our heavily out-gunned.

[calcowgirl]

I just read those stipulations again. Really weird. Not one of these refers to any proof or ballistics test that the bullet was matched to Ramos' gun, only that "Mr. Correa's testimony would establish that the .40 caliber bullet was expelled from the Beretta .40 caliber firearm, Government's Exhibit 39" (Ramos' gun).

Breaking down the stipulation, and referencing further definition from the evidence listing at bottom of Vol 7 (p.235), we know the nature of the exhibits:

• Exhibit 34 Chain of custody, bullet (Form)
• Exhibit 35 Chain of custody, bullet (Form)
• Exhibit 36 Bullet fragment is of a .40 caliber bullet. (bullet fragment)
• Exhibit 37 Re: Chain of custody, Beretta (Form)
• Exhibit 38 Re: Chain of custody, Beretta (Form)
• Exhibit 39A Ramos' .40 caliber Beretta (Gun)
• Exhibit 39B ("Bullet"--presumably from Ramos' gun)

In addition to the above, the parties stipulated that 1) Correa was an expert and 2) that Correa's testimony would establish was expelled from Ramos' gun. So, none of the ballistics tests were admitted into the court record at all, apparently.

I'm still baffled why they stipulated to this.
.