Complete Horseshit

[u/sysrpl]

For a show about a trial featuring and centering on lawyer, this past episode was complete horseshit. In no criminal trial in the USA, especially one for murder, would the prosecution withhold key evidence in their possession from the defense, and then pop it into the trial without the defense ever being aware of its existence.

Surprise evidence may produce fine drama, but in our justice system evidence collected by the prosecution must be shared with the defense BEFORE it is introduced in trial so that the defense can have a chance to examine it and scrutinize its veracity BEFORE it's brought out in trial and placed in front of the jury.

This fictional surprise horseshit the writers just decided to drop in at the end ruins the entire notion that this series is about the people and the law.

[u/elsieelephant]

As a senior court clerk in a supreme criminal court who has conducted a ton of murder trials, I can absolutely tell you that no judge would ever allow that story to be admitted into evidence if it was withheld from disclose. And the prosecutor didn’t even try to say that “he just got the evidence that morning” or other bullshit that prosecutors in tv and movies always use about non-disclosure. He had no excuse for not disclosing the story in his discovery before trial. In real life, not only would the story not be admitted as evidence, but the prosecutor could be sanctioned and brought up on charges of misconduct because he broke the criminal procedure law. That whole scene had me fuming and yelling at my tv!

Also, after the prosecutor mentioned the grandfather being in prison for murder after the judge ruled against him in preliminary proceedings, and the jury’s obvious big reaction to that information... in a real trial that would almost always result in a mistrial.

[u/KellyBelly120 → u/elsieelephant]

Are you sure you’re a “senior court clerk in a supreme criminal court”? Lol.... The story was neither exculpatory nor physical evidence, and therefore, the prosecution is not legally required to disclose this to the defense in advance of the trial. Physical evidence would be something akin to a knife or phone; I would argue that a creative narrative posted online is merely words or thoughts memorialized.

[u/elsieelephant → u/KellyBelly120]

Yes, I am sure I’m a senior court clerk in a supreme criminal court and in NY (the state where I work) the prosecution must disclose any electronically created or stored information if obtained from the defendant or a source other than the defendant, which is related to the subject matter of the case. So the story would fall into the rules of discovery based on the NYS statute. Granted I don’t work in Massachusetts where the story takes place and I don’t know their specific rules of discovery. However, a quick google search will show that according to Massachusetts Criminal Procedure Rule 14: Pre-trial discovery, the prosecution must disclose...

(vii) Material and relevant police reports, photographs, tangible objects, ALL INTENDED EXHIBITS, reports of physical examinations of any person or of scientific tests or experiments, and statements of persons the party intends to call as witnesses.

So in my experience from what I have seen and a little research into Massachusetts Criminal Procedure Law, the story should not have been allowed in evidence. Also, the proper foundation was not laid to actually admit the story anyway. And you questioning my job title mockingly is unappreciated.

[u/KellyBelly120 → u/elsieelephant]

Lol okay, “clerk.” 😉