Go back to previous topic
Forum nameGeneral Discussion
Topic subjectRE: Another question. The thing about Carl Douglas not reporting the
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12966797&mesg_id=12982685
12982685, RE: Another question. The thing about Carl Douglas not reporting the
Posted by SoWhat, Fri Mar-04-16 02:03 PM
>So what's the whole thing about the defense needing to present
>witnesses to the prosecution before hand?

i'm not sure about the law and rules in Cali (this case was tried under California state law and California Supreme Court rules and the various California rules of evidence and professional conduct). but where i practice in felony cases both parties (state and defense) are required to give advance notice of any witnesses the party intends to call at trial. neither party can 'surprise' its opponent w/any witness unless there's some extreme circumstance that left the party w/o a choice. generally if there's a surprise witness attempted the party doing the surprising may be barred from calling that witness. or, more likely, the opponent will be granted some time to investigate this surprise witness which may result in a delay in the proceedings.

Was it just a
>mistake that they weren't reported in this case?

i dunno. in the show Cochran's ppl blamed Shapiro's ppl for leaving those names off the defense's witness list given to the state and the court before the trial started. i dunno if that actually happened or why.

And if it's
>unethical or whatever, why would the judge still allow those
>witnesses to be called

b/c the judge generally will give the defense some leeway in the interest of avoiding an issue that may be raised in an appeal which could result in a whole new trial or a reversal of the jury's verdict (if the defendant is found guilty in the first trial after the judge barred the surprise witness).

...or were they still called? That whole
>segment had me kinda lost.

i dunno if the witnesses were actually called during the trial.