Replies

Girolami issued a tentative decision in favor of holding a special hearing on whether to allow mitochondrial DNA evidence gathered by authorities.
Such hearings allow judges to explore technology that might be new to courtrooms.

The judge, however, ruled against special hearings on cadaver dogs and global positioning system tracking technology.

Above is from the ModBee article you posted this a.m. I understand that the judge made 2 decisions at least on the evidence, (1) in favor of a hearing on mitochondrial DNA, and (2) he ruled against special hearings on cadaver dogs and global position system tracking technology. So the "402's" are the cadaver dogs and global......, right? Where do the wiretaps come in, or do they?

Now,there is only the Frank's hearing left,which will be held on October 29th.

Does that mean he will have a Frank's hearing first, before the evidentiary hearing, and will the Frank's hearing cover the wiretaps? I'm just confused! Please forgive me!

My understanding is since the Frank's Hearing can be held concurrently with the preliminary(as there is no jury present)the two will be combined into one.Again,I have to defer to DA,and ask her if my post seems to agree with her knowledge of the courtroom.

Yes, the "402's" are about the cadaver dogs and global positioning devices. I don't have the CA Rules of Evidence handy (LOL! but I'm sure they're on the web); however, I can tell you that Federal Rule of Evidence 402 is: RELEVANT EVIDENCE GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE; IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE. All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the U.S., Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible."

I can't speak for every state, but the trend is and has been for the states to make their rules of evidence the same as, or similar to, the Federal Rules of Evidence. I am guessing that CA's Rule 402 is just like the above.

Notice the last sentence of the rule: that's what Geragos was saying: he was saying that those dogs' behavior was not relevant, b/c it doesn't prove anything when the dog goes in this direction, or whatever direction. (Nonsense! We know it does.) He was saying also that the global positioning devices' information wasn't relevant.

I hadn't heard that he'd decided to hold a Franks hearing, and that he'd have it on Oct. 29. At that hearing Geragos and McAllister are supposed to back up their assertions that the cops lied, or recklessly disregarded the truth, in their affidavits used to get the wiretaps. (I'm disappointed that the judge granted them their Franks hearing.)