This isn't the only place I've been discussing this.
First, absent the arguments in the motion, I can't address the probative value of the possible testimony. iocaste212 is having a discussion of the subject.
She (a lawyer, though not criminal, and in NY, not Illinois) says there may have been grounds for the decision.
She also says it appears that other aspects of Ill. Law prevented it from being done (which the judge later saw, or had pointed out to him) so the posture of the Gov., while correct, may be a bit of grandstanding.
Me, I think any probative value would be small, and not enough to outweigh the predjudicial aspects (which is what I said in iocaste212's discussion) but (as I said elsewhere, there is a second question, if the tape is to to be allowed in, as evidence which requires comment from the complaintant, then she has to watch it.
If she refuses, then she's in contempt. That aspect of it is black letter, and one can't really ascrribe evil intent to the judge, prima facie.
no subject
First, absent the arguments in the motion, I can't address the probative value of the possible testimony.
She (a lawyer, though not criminal, and in NY, not Illinois) says there may have been grounds for the decision.
She also says it appears that other aspects of Ill. Law prevented it from being done (which the judge later saw, or had pointed out to him) so the posture of the Gov., while correct, may be a bit of grandstanding.
Me, I think any probative value would be small, and not enough to outweigh the predjudicial aspects (which is what I said in
If she refuses, then she's in contempt. That aspect of it is black letter, and one can't really ascrribe evil intent to the judge, prima facie.
TK (http://iocaste212.livejournal.com/872433.html)