I just returned from observing another traffic court session.
As was the case in my previous court observations, all the officers testified that they have an independent recollection of events and that their notes are to be used simply to refresh their memory.
Before using the notes, the prosecution asks the defense if they have any objections to the notes being used.
It occurred to me today that this is a very good opportunity to stop certain testimony that otherwise would have leaked out.
I _was going to object to a statement by the officer that he’s recorded in his notes, that has nothing to do with the charge, but would bias the judge in his favor once it was read.
My objection would most likely have been sustained, as the statement clearly does not have anything to do with the charge at hand. But once the officer had read it, the judge would have knowledge of it, even though he/she would likely not allow it as evidence.
Now I see I may have a better strategy and this is where I need your candid advice.
When the prosecution asks me if I have any objections to the officer using his notes to refresh his memory, can I then confer with the prosecution (or even out loud to the court) and state that so long as the officer does not introduce any statements from his notes that do not directly have a bearing on the charge, I have no objections.
Will the prosecution/court allow this?
This seems like a good/fair way to keep out a statement that might otherwise prejudice the judge in his/her decision.
I suppose the officer can still introduce it and then quickly say he’s sorry, he forgot. Nothing could be done then right?
Judges, prosecutors, officers that reply; please be as honest as possible with this (not that you usually aren't). Thanks.
As was the case in my previous court observations, all the officers testified that they have an independent recollection of events and that their notes are to be used simply to refresh their memory.
Before using the notes, the prosecution asks the defense if they have any objections to the notes being used.
It occurred to me today that this is a very good opportunity to stop certain testimony that otherwise would have leaked out.
I _was going to object to a statement by the officer that he’s recorded in his notes, that has nothing to do with the charge, but would bias the judge in his favor once it was read.
My objection would most likely have been sustained, as the statement clearly does not have anything to do with the charge at hand. But once the officer had read it, the judge would have knowledge of it, even though he/she would likely not allow it as evidence.
Now I see I may have a better strategy and this is where I need your candid advice.
When the prosecution asks me if I have any objections to the officer using his notes to refresh his memory, can I then confer with the prosecution (or even out loud to the court) and state that so long as the officer does not introduce any statements from his notes that do not directly have a bearing on the charge, I have no objections.
Will the prosecution/court allow this?
This seems like a good/fair way to keep out a statement that might otherwise prejudice the judge in his/her decision.
I suppose the officer can still introduce it and then quickly say he’s sorry, he forgot. Nothing could be done then right?
Judges, prosecutors, officers that reply; please be as honest as possible with this (not that you usually aren't). Thanks.