Here we go, judge is pissed . . .

[Sympthsical]

This'll be interesting.

Edit: The prosecution was explaining why the Zaminsky's weren't on the stand, asserting they had a 5th Amendment privilege. However, it is untrue for the wife.

But when it came up, the judge looked furious. They argued a bit, the judge thought about it, and found a solution.

If he'd let the two sides to get into it, it would've allowed the possibility of giving the defense a rebuttal. The judge found a way to avoid it.

[Heartstrings]

1. Oh ffs!

He’s exhausting…..

[Tomconroy]

2. What happened?

[Sympthsical]

4. Prosecutor started messing with the 5th Amendment again

He's trying to say the Zaminsky's weren't testifying because of their 5th Amendment right. It's not true for the wife.

Honestly, I'm trying to figure out what they're hashing out. But that's the claim at issue.

[Dr. Strange]

7. Disaster averted, it looks like.

[Sympthsical]

9. Yeah, judge found an exit

He doesn't want a clusterfark at this late stage.

[Amishman]

11. Honestly pretty generous of him

The prosecution repeatedly making significant and bizarre slips relating to the 5th is pretty severe. The judge could have come down a lot harder.

I suspect that if we do manage to get guilty on a few charges, quite a bit will be made of it on appeal.

[Beaverhausen]

3. yeah what happened? We aren't all watching

thanks!

[sheshe2]

5. Some details perhaps?

[48656c6c6f20]

6. I can't see your radio broadcast.

[BlackSkimmer]

8. I hate this judge.

One good thing is that when these prosecutors have been speaking - it’s the first time I’ve seen the murdering little punk look uncomfortable.

[Walleye]

10. He looked like this was the first time he had actually sat and thought about what he did

[Bev54]

12. The defense attorney is at fault here, saying the prosecution could have called them

but did not. The prosecution was explaining the jury why not and defense jumps up and says it is not in evidence. He really is a pompous ass, turned me right off this entire trial. Calling prosecutors liars when it really is he and his client that is the liars. What a stupid way to conduct yourself during a trial. I understand theatrics but he is totally disrespectful, which would not be allowed in a court room in Canada.

[Sympthsical]

13. My ultimate understanding of the resolution

Is that either side could have called the wife but did not, but the husband was off limits because of the 5th Amendment.

That was what I came away with, but I could be wrong.

[Bev54]

14. Well they could have and that was decided by the judge

but the defense is the one claiming in their summation that the prosecution could have called them, knowing that Mr. could plead the 5th but failed to say that. When the prosecutor rebutted that he stood up to say it was not in evidence. Shit man you brought it up!