Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D's trial began, and a motion to sequester the witnesses was granted. P presented several witnesses who testified to various burglaries, the items which were taken, and the value of those items. Police testified concerning the search of D's residence and an interview of D. There is no dispute that the stolen items were found in D's living quarters in the basement of his parents' home. D testified that his wife had brought the property into the residence; that he had believed her explanation that she was purchasing and had acquired the property lawfully. D's wife was not available to be called as a witness at the trial. D also planned to call D's father, and D's sister, to testify that D's wife had made similar statements concerning her acquisition of the property to them. However, these witnesses had been seen in the courtroom during D's testimony in violation of the sequestration order. The court excluded their testimony. D's attorney learned from Mr. Towner and Gloria that an agent of the district attorney's office had attempted to interview them; that they had been asked by the agent to enter the courtroom, and they did so because of this request. D informed the court and asked they be permitted to testify. P disputed the instruction for them to enter the courtroom. D proffered their testimony to the judge. The judge ruled it of dubious relevance but is also cumulative to what D had already testified to, and which no one has challenged.' The original ruled stood. D was convicted and appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co