I read his BS theory about the every witness thing. But it is clear now that he *knew* that she could not actually have been a witness because she was not there. That is different than letting every witness testify even if their accounts may be off - biased whatever. There were there and the different accounts can be weighed against one another. This person was not anywhere near the shooting and he knew that before he brought her to testify. Twice.
He had other witnesses testify that he knew were lying too. I think he just wanted to throw so much bullshit at the jury that they threw up their hands.
Prosecutors also played the grand jury a 10-minute police interview with a man who claimed to have witnessed the shooting. Then they played a phone call in which the man admitted that he actually had not seen the incident. Why waste their time? But they did, over and over again. Anyone who wanted to testify could.
He got witness 22 to recant on the stand and admit she wasn't there. He tried with witness 40, saying she couldn't have been there and perhaps she dreamed it, or perhaps her bipolar condition played a role but she said no. So he did lead the jury to disregard her as well.
One article I read said that in NYC, they typically don't hold back any evidence when it involves a cop either - they don't want to be accused of partiality in what they consider legitimate testimony. I guess it depends on the trial locale and the circumstances.
If this is their motivation, I got a simple soultion - special prosecutor.
One article I read said that in NYC, they typically don't hold back any evidence when it involves a cop either - they don't want to be accused of partiality in what they consider legitimate testimony. I guess it depends on the trial locale and the circumstances.
If this is their motivation, I got a simple soultion - special prosecutor.
unbelievable...except it keeps happening over & over.
I get that you have to use some judgement & witnesses will always have different stories that contradict each other, but knowingly offering up a witness who had fabricated testimony is reprehensible.