Yes--apparently he has moved for a mistrial. A "mistrial with prejudice".
Nancy had an excellent point: the original statement of the witness is on paper and on tape, and Geragos has it, and HAS had it. This is exactly the sort of situation that cross-examination is designed for.
It's basically an impeachment situation. Brocchini says, "Here's what was said/done when I talked to the college friend." Geragos supposedly knows that Brocchini is not accurately relating what was said/done. So Geragos should whip out his copy of the statement and say, "If that's how it went, Detective, then why isn't it like that in this statement here?"
Did Geragos do this? I would hope that he did. If he didn't do what it was legally possible for him to do, then how can he now complain?
In order for that "with prejudice" thing to apply, I would think that some really heinous, horrifying, double-dealing, deceptive misconduct would have to have been done by the prosecution. Somehow, I don't think that was the case...
Last night Greta said that the problem is that Distaso did not get Broccini to say that the duct tape thing is not on the taped interview, and that is why Geragos can ask for a mis-trial. As I understand it, it's because Distaso did not correct his own witness when he testified to something that was false. I'm no lawyer, so I do not know if this is true or not.
Gotta go start dinner, but first...
Geragos' only possible win will come from something like this. So he needs to get all the witnesses rattled, be as confusing as possible in his behavior and questioning, and pray that he can find a technicality.
There is no other way to get a 'Not Guilty' for his client.
He probably wouldn't mind a mistrial Without Prejudice, so much, either. Another chance to find a loophole, any loophole.
And Scott won't mind sitting in jail another year while he does it. He knows it's the only way out of prison, excpet for in a body bag.
BBL,
Pinz
It appears that in order to win a mistrial with prejudice, defense must show that the prosecution deliberately "brought on" the mistrial through "bad faith misconduct".
I don't see that happening here.
If there were any mistrial granted here, it would almost certainly be the type after which the prosecution could come back and try the defendant again. The winning of such a ruling would not improve Scott's position at all.
I don't think the judge will grant a mistrial at all here.
This is NO "WITH PREJUDICE" situation!! Geragos is AGAIN grandstanding and hyperventilating!! Hoping like heck that the Jury is ALL watching and listening to TV all weekend.