Monday, February 2, 2009

Why put on 1 witness and 3 photographs when 2 witnesses and 17 photos will do? Few things annoy me more than evidentiary overkill at trial. I know the prosecutor is afraid I will make a stink about chain of custody or argue that they haven't laid a sufficient foundation. But I won't. I promise. I'm much more likely to complain about them boring me to sleep! Besides, chain of custody or foundation issues never go anywhere.

And it's always on some side issue that has little to no probative value. Like the 3 cigarette cutts found 50 yards from the crime scene that have no connection to anyone remotely involved in the crime. I really don't care about those cigarette butts, so you don't have to, either. You certainly don't need to introduce 10 photos of them, from every conceivable angle. Basically, if you find yourself asking the CSI guy who collected the butts, "And, again, this is that same cigarette butt from a different angle," you're overdoing it.


Erin said...

Prosecutors can't be expected to be smart enough to streamline. I kid. Kind of.

S said...

But didn't they learn anything from the OJ trial? Take too long with the prosecution and the jury will hate you! (There were all sorts of problems with the OJ prosecution, but I am convinced the avalanche of crap, er testimony, they put in front of the jury played a huge part in that verdict.)

Blog Designed by : NW Designs