Seen in the “California news in brief” column of the San Jose Mercury News on Monday, 3-Apr-2006:
SACRAMENTO
Ruling hurts defense in Lodi terrorism trial
A judge dealt a blow to the defense team of a father and son facing federal terrorism-related charges when he refused to allow the testimony of a former FBI agent now working as its chief investigator.
James J. Wedick, who has said the FBI bungled various aspects of the case against Umer Hayat and his son, Hamid Hayat, will not be allowed on the stand because his testimony had “the potential for confusing the jury, wasting time and presenting needless cumulative evidence,” U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. said Friday.
I wasn’t aware that it was within the purview of a judge to suppress testimony that might confuse the jury. It seems to me that if the defense presents a witness who offers testimony that confuses the jury, the prosecution has the opportunity to cross-examine, and can also cast doubt upon that testimony in their closing statement.
I suspect that if the defendents are convicted, that the Judge Burrell’s rationale for disallowing the witness will be a big help in getting an appeal accepted. Though if recent reports are to be believed, the prosecution’s case against the Hayats is very weak anyhow.
The Sacramento Bee reported last mont on the defense bringing in Mr. Wedick as an expert witness, and on the prosecution’s vigorous opposition. They have extensive coverage of the Lodi terrorism case (free registration required).
Judge disallows defense witness who might confuse the jury
Seen in the “California news in brief” column of the San Jose Mercury News on Monday, 3-Apr-2006:
I wasn’t aware that it was within the purview of a judge to suppress testimony that might confuse the jury. It seems to me that if the defense presents a witness who offers testimony that confuses the jury, the prosecution has the opportunity to cross-examine, and can also cast doubt upon that testimony in their closing statement.
I suspect that if the defendents are convicted, that the Judge Burrell’s rationale for disallowing the witness will be a big help in getting an appeal accepted. Though if recent reports are to be believed, the prosecution’s case against the Hayats is very weak anyhow.
The Sacramento Bee reported last mont on the defense bringing in Mr. Wedick as an expert witness, and on the prosecution’s vigorous opposition. They have extensive coverage of the Lodi terrorism case (free registration required).