(Article Link here) This case is a good example of the type of tricks that some prosecutors pull in order to win convictions. This case was well-publicized, and the prosecutors appeared to have a good chance of getting a conviction on the merits of the case, but what happened? The prosecution first comes up with a last-minute “jail-house snitch” (always an unreliable source) who claims that the defendant directly confessed guilt to her, and the court allows it to push her testimony through after giving the defense only a few minutes to interview her. So much for following the rules of discovery to the other side in good-faith!
Then, for some reason, this same witness is not available to testify in person at the second trial (it is unknown right now, but possibly because at that time she may have already recanted her testimony) and the court still allows her past recorded testimony to be presented by prosecutors despite the defense not being able to cross-examine her.
Now the prosecution is shocked that the state appeals court would review the conviction and find it’s methods questionable, especially since it is known now that this jail-house snitch has recanted her testimony and that there is another witness who contradicts her. These are the types of trial tactics which should never be attempted or allowed in unbiased prosecutions.
RichardWanke.Com 