[Lucy Lake]

Don't they have to provide all evidence to prevent the possibility of a mistrial? Or, at a later date Scott/Geragos could ask for a new trial if something is omitted?

[Canadian Outrage]

When it gets to trial they must disclose their evidence to the other side. In the Prelim they are allowed to outline their case in a barebones way. Geragos already knows a lot of the sealed evidence. Why do you think he wants the wiretaps excluded, the GPS evidence excluded? the autopsy photo's excluded? and on and on. He doesn't want the warrants unsealed. He KNOWS it will be damaging.

[Canadian Outrage]

LOL - Make that Montana!! not Montanan. Sheesh. I'm leaving my office soon to drive home in a nice snowfall after dark. btw, I wore my Leather jacket this morning and it has fringes. FOFL!!

[Velveeta]

Don't they have to provide all evidence to prevent the possibility of a mistrial?

Not at the preliminary hearing. The prosecution presents enough for a judge to discern the possibility of guilt, to justify going to trial.

[Sandylapper]

You may be right, grizz, CO. Maybe in a circumstantial case like this, all loose ends have to be tied.

[Devil_Anse]

Before the trial, but not necessarily before the prelim, the state has to turn over all exculpatory evidence that is in their possession. As for other evidence, often if someone doesn't turn it over in response to a lawful discovery request, then that party can't use it at trial. LAWFUL discovery request.