If Geragos wants to have any chance of bringing this up as a grounds for appeal, he must object on the record. I don't know if he did; Greta said he didn't.
If he does decide to try to derail the prosecution b/c of Brocchini's alleged "perjury", then he must move for a mistrial. BUT if he moves for a mistrial, he is in danger of GETTING a mistrial. (I mean, if you ask for something, you might get it, right? Even if there's only a small chance?)
Geragos has to think: Do I really want a mistrial at this point? That would mean Scott goes back to jail for maybe another year, we start all this over again, we haven't gained an acquittal, and we might not do as well next time as I think we are doing this time.
All in all, I don't see Geragos sincerely asking for a mistrial here. And if he doesn't ask for a mistrial to preserve the record now, then he can't bring this up on appeal, b/c the appeals court will say he WAIVED his problems with this issue by not asking for a mistrial.
Really, after first wondering, then listening to other posters, then thinking it over, I think this is all much ado about nothing!
>>Really, after first wondering, then listening to other posters, then thinking it over, I think this is all much ado about nothing!<<
Don't you think that it's just to counter the devastating testimony that the jury heard this week? Just Defense spin that Geragos is hoping the jury hears about.
Someone needs to keep that nutcase, dumbs$%t juror #5 off of the television!! I swear everytime he opens his mouth I hear exact phrases come out of him that I've read by disruptors on this thread, and other forums.