Judge warns of mistrial in Chauvin case if prosecution witness even 'hints' at 'newly discovered evi

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

evidence'

The judge in the George Floyd case rejected a request by the prosecution on Thursday to enter newly discovered evidence in the murder trial of Derek Chauvin that would have contained information about Floyd's carbon monoxide levels during his arrest, warning of a mistrial if the results were mentioned by their rebuttal witness before the jury.

Judge Peter Cahill ruled against the admission of evidence, saying it was unfair to the defense.

Cahill said the prosecution had an opportunity earlier to provide the evidence since it knew Fowler was raising the issue of carbon monoxide. He said allowing it now would prejudice the jury.

"It's untimely to give the notice and it prejudiced the defense by the late disclosure, even if it's not due to bad faith but the late disclosure has prejudiced the defense, it's not going to be allowed," Cahill said.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-warns-of-mistrial-in-chauvin-case-if-prosecution-witness-even-hints-at-newly-discovered-evidence/ar-BB1fGWML

[riversedge]

1. geez. Seems the procecution has all the evidence it needs to convict. But

who am I to say that. Just musing it seems.

[Jim__]

2. The prosecution recalled Dr Tobin and even without the new evidence he did a good job ...

... of demolishing Fowler's claims about a high carbon monoxide content in the blood. He also did a good job of attacking Fowler's testimony about a narrowing of the upper respiratory track (I can' recall the exact term involved). I wouldn't worry too much about the exclusion of the new evidence.

[Deminpenn]

3. Judge was madder at the ME than the prosecutor

I seriously doubt he would have declared a mistrial after 3 weeks of testimony.

[Sancho]

6. I was watching the trial and I can see why the judge was pissed...

...the prosecution did not actually get ALL the test results and reports. When the idea of carbon monoxide came up, the expert called the prosecution and said that blood tests generally included a test that would show it.

The ME / hospital apparently provided the prosecution partial results, and not everything in spite of a legal order to produce all the evidence.

After the fact, the prosecution could not introduce "new" evidence even though it was relevant.

[Deminpenn]

8. I think screw ups like that royally tee off judges

Was on a jury where a mistrial was declared because the asst DA hadn't properly prepped a witness not to mention the defendent's prior arrests. The judge was really, really mad at the DA and very apologetic to us jurors.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. Why is "fairness" more important than truth in a trial like this?

It's not a sports competition.

[oldsoftie]

5. Because "truth" is sometimes not "legal"

It can be true that you are caught with 10 pounds of illegal drugs in your home. But if the cops find those drugs with an illegal search, the jury cannot hear the truth about you having them.

[Crunchy Frog]

7. I watched the testimony, and it looked like the relevent information was communicated.

It was a nail biter to watch though.

[oldsoftie]

9. Yes, he had to word it very carefully.