THE COURT: Ready for the final one? Is it a
coincident that both cases ended up in the lap of
Detective xxxxx?
Our Attorney: I think the same answer. I guess
it’s the same answer, right? No?
MR. Prosecutor: Did they actually ask that question? I
would — I don’t know if– see, I don’t want to –
Our Attorney: Judge, let’s rely on the same answer
with that one, too. Same instruction. Rely on evidence received. No other evidence to be
relied on.
Is our attorney serious? Even the prosecutor was surprised. In fact, the prosecutor looked like he was beginning to have doubts. Our attorney cut him off.
Why didn’t our attorney ask for a mistrial since there were so many questions? The jurors were suspicious of the detectective. They wanted to know if it was a coincident that both cases ended up in the lap of Detective xxxxx?
Let me answer that question. It was not a coincident. It was done deliberately. In fact, if our attorney had not severed the second case, they would have found that she was also the detective on that case too. She was also the detective for the guys that robbed my son. Imagine that. One detective handling 6 related cases. She was the one doing the interviews, interrogations and she also was the one that signed off on the accuracy of the interviews when it was transcribe into a transcript. How is this possible? She was determined that it was going to be my son.
