Of course the extraneous will be admitted - I mean - duh, Cynthia. Okay, so I have to deal. So, I ask the basis of the offer of the extraneous, and the basis of the admission, & you would think -to use my 7th grade history teacher's favorite phrase,
I must be talking Swahili or something?No one seems to think that (1) P has to show a basis for admission or (2) the judge has to limit the jury's consideration to THAT basis. All they know is that the dang thing is coming in - so just sit down. (Well, you know that ain't happening! My client is already at the train station being railroaded to the best of the teams' ability.)
ME: I'm asking again that the State be required to state the basis of the admission, and that the jury be -- The Court: The basis of WHAT? ME: Of the admission of the extraneous. And that the jury be instructed, just regarding the admission of the extraneous. They will be instructed that they can consider the extraneous against the allegations - - the allegations of the complainant against my client to determine the relationship. And the third-party extraneous goes to the extraneous by the complainant. And I'm asking - It's going to be confusing. (Of course I recognize this immediately as I had been dealing with 2 people who do not know, or at least understand, the law. I was right - especially during THIS trial. EVERYTHING I was legally entitled to seemed to confuse.)
The Court: Yesterday we discussed the wording on the instruction you wanted me to read. And I understood you have no objection. Are you now objecting to the wording in the instruction?
ME: NO, I NEVER said I had no objection. I specifically asked that the instruction be limited to the purpose for which THIS prosecutor offers it. (BTW, folks, I am right on the law. They just didn't have a clue the basis for admission because it should NOT have been admitted. It served no purpose in this case but to inflame the minds of the jurors - which is not a reason to admit it.)
The Court: . . .Right? I understand. You made that objection. Is that still your objection this morning? ME: The Court has NOT required the State to provide a specific reason for offering this. The Court: ... That request is denied. (unbelievable - she gets to offer inadmissible evidence without even trying to explain other than the jury can use it to convict him because he is a bad man - essentially).
The Court then proceeds to read the entire limiting instruction (which has a bunch of confusing stuff that has ZERO to do with the trial.) Of course when asked for objections from P, she says no objections. (All she knows is that somehow she has slipped this in & she doesn't want to blow it now!) When asked for my objection- Me: Yes, I object to providing any wording that has to do with any purpose other than what the State is offering it for. The Court: I think it could come in possibly under more than one of these. So I am going to read them all. So your objection is overruled. ME: Identity? Motive? (Remember this is his niece. Obviously she knows him & if he sexually assaulted her, well, the motive is clear. Can you tell how ludicrous this is all getting?! What the State wants, the State gets.)
The Court: I'm going to read them all and the jury can decide whether -- thank you. (See - she doesn't even know what the jury is supposed to be deciding about the inadmissible extraneous. But she gives that well known thank you, as I heard so many times in this farce of a trial.
Then there is conversation between The Court & P in which they decide that well, identity isn't really an issue so the judge can take that out. It's okay. (I hope you are laughing. It was such a joke. I just shook my head & wondered where I was. Surely I was having a horrible nightmare. Sad thing is - my client was having the exact same nightmare & his freedom was at stake. This was serious stuff.)
P then proceeds to put on the extraneous complainant. Remember PNDL1 and the other liar, I mean prosecutor who I wanted to have testify & was denied - they come into court & P announces that they want to watch the testimony. Of course, I object, and guess what - MIRACLE of all miracles - it is sustained. (That was easy - I didn't really get anything & now she can say - see - I granted some of your objections . . . )
I'll stop now because I want you all to know that there was NO WAY the extraneous was admissible in this case for any legitimate reason. It was a lie, but more important to this - it simply had no law under which it was arguably admissible! That is why P could not said why she was offering & that is why the judge didn't know what to do with the limiting instruction - because it did not fit any excuse of admission.
Until next time - remember to go when called upon to serve on the jury. (Just try not to smell that skunk the judges let these prosecutors throw in the box, and then instruct you to ignore.)
And adopt a pet - don't buy one. There are too many babies needing homes out in the world. : )