BDLR did not object to the question. He now wants to strike the answer.
He waived the State’s objection by failing to object. Now he wants the judge to strike the answer.
I get the feeling the judge is going to grant the motion. She is all in for the prosecution.
It is almost a surity the judge will hold for the prosection on the liar statement.
” She is all in for the prosecution”
You misspelled “persecution”.
RE: Serino’s opinion that Z was telling the truth:
In the abstract, I can understand why a witness’ opinion might be off limits in seeking to establish fact — hence an objection by the prosecution.
However, Serino’s JOB in interrogating Z was to get at the truth, by any means necessary. Therefore, since that what exactly what he was SEEKING TO DO, and since he’s a professional (expert?) PAID to do just that, why should his CONCLUSION not be admissable?
And it's so blatant...I hope the jury sees this!
Oh she is definitely “in bed with/in the tank for” the prosecution. That has been clearly established. And I’m sure she will be well-rewarded for her loyalty to the rabid/vapid left. In this case, justice isn’t just blind, it’s deaf, dumb and retarded.