Replies

Winesses who finally realize that their 15 minutes is over routinely disappear, on their own volition, from public view.

The defense has the power to subpeona witnesses and to compel testimony. The defense can also introduce earlier statements made by the witness. All; that needs to be done is to read the initial statements and then go over the number of times LE questioned and re-questioned that witness.

Did LE point out inconsistencies in the witness' statement or conflicts with other "know facts".

Do this enough times with enough witnesses and the jury starts to think that LE is pushing its own agenda.

All; that needs to be done is to read the initial statements and then go over the number of times LE questioned and re-questioned that witness.

The police don't ever have to re-question a witness who is not being completely honest. The witness knows. As a matter of fact, the big gripe here is that the MPD didn't talk to these media propelled witnesses enough. The police don't waste their time with them, knowing that they will be discredited at trial if the defense insists on calling them.

The witness will hear the facts through the media as they come out while the prosecution's case is presented at trial. When it is the defense's turn, the witness will realize that his story is beyond belief. The defense may be told by the witness that he made up his previous statements or he may just recant. If the defense attempts to require his testimony remain as previously stated, THAT may be suborning perjury in addition to being a case loser.

If you're talking about witnesses who will be called by the defense, chances are the defense will not get to introduce their prior statements. Generally, prior statements cannot be introduced unless one is impeaching the witness, and then the statements have to be inconsistent. Why would the defense want to impeach its own witnesses?

Prior consistent statements are only admissible, generally, if the other party has already attacked the credibility of a witness you called.

While the above is not taken from California law, the general rules of evidence for 49 states are taught to law students who will practice in any of those 49 states. That is, routinely, a person who is going to practice in, say, Michigan, will sit in class with a person who plans to practice in, say, California.

The rules of evidence in the 50th state, Louisiana, are not all that different, generally, but the rest of their law is so different that one must take a separate course of study to learn it; hence, a Louisiana student would probably not be in class with students who were going to other states.