HERE IS THE DA RESPONSE TO THE DEFENSES MOTION
READ FOR YOURSELF AND YOU TELL ME:
DONATIONS
HELP DAWGS BLOG
$5.00
FRANK CARSON ET AL UPDATE…….
HERE IS THE DA RESPONSE TO THE DEFENSES MOTION
READ FOR YOURSELF AND YOU TELL ME:
DONATIONS
HELP DAWGS BLOG
$5.00
that made my head hurt , the one thing i do get from that is “look at all these other people that did these things and got away with it, so should we” the sheer number of felonious criminal acts by the prosecution and its minions is staggering and still counting, what they have learned is they can get away with it and nobody will stop them.
Absolutely correct. Simply striking the testimony of Jim Cook would be an inadequate remedy. When prosecutors put on flawed expert testimony, they should be ready to have their case dismissed. Otherwise, what motivation would prosecutrs have to NOT put on flawed expert testimony? If they know that all that could happen is that the testimony will be stricken, and only if they get caught, there is little incentive to put on accurate expert testimony.
The DA has missed the point of why and how the defendants have been prejudiced. Jim Cook did not use proper procedures or equipment to prepare his charts and maps. Google cell tower mapping is easily and readily available. Any expert in cell phone mapping would have used it because it is more accurate and less likely to produce a false result. The defense has proven that not only did Cook fail to use the proper technique for mapping, the protractor technique he did use was, by his own admission, flawed.
We are talking about convicting people of murder based upon flawed techniques, procedures and data. That’s prejudicial! How is that possibly not prejudicial? Having the opportunity to cross examine him, does not erase the fact that every chart, every map, every thing he testified to was grounded upon data and information and techniques that are flawed, and possibly wrong. It is not the defense’s obligation, nor should it be, to go back to Everything Cook said, and every chart and map he produced and cross examine him to help him correct where his results are wrong because he used inaccurate procedures and data.
Jim Cook’s testimony should obviously be striken in its entirety, and because the jury has already heard the flawed testimony from someone who was touted to them as an expert, the case should be dismissed with prejudice, against all defendants.
This is a no-brainer. Courts not only dismiss cases with flawed expert testimony, they overturn them on appeal. None of Cook’s testimony or charts or data should have ever been allowed into evidence. But because they were, the bell cannot be unrung. Simply striking his testimony and exhibits, in their entirity, would be an inadequate remedy because the jury can be confused. For weeks, they heard this guy was an expert. The court certifed him as an expert. The DA represented him as an expert. This expert worked with investigators and the DA on this case. This expert was paid over 400k! Now, they are striking his testimony, a juror may wonder. Why? Is it because of a technicality? Is it because the defense is trying to pull the wool over their eyes? Is it because they are trying to hide something?
But, we all already know what Judge Z is going to do. Motion Denied! She is so predictable.