- Free Consultation: 703-298-9562 Tap Here to Call Us
Answer me this batman
When are statements made by a prosecutor admissible at trial. And assuming you can establish relevance and get past Mil. R. Evid. 403, under what rule.
How about Mil. R. Evid. 801 as admissions of a party-opponent.
You think I jest. Check out United States v. Bakshinian, 65 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (DC S.D. Ca. 1999).
Therefore, the Court declines to follow Zizzo’s suggestion and instead follows the numerous courts that have applied the party-opponent rule to statements by a government prosecutor.
So, got a case where prosecutors have argued inconsistently between your case and another?
And while we are on co-accused’s:
Bakshinian also moves in limine for an order precluding the government from presenting a theory in Bakshinian’s trial that is inconsistent with the theory the government presented in the Nabaie trial. “It is well established that when no new significant evidence comes to light a prosecutor cannot, in order to convict two defendants at separate trials, offer inconsistent theories and facts regarding the same crime.”
Bakshinian, 65 F. Supp. 2d at 1110. And see, United States v. Nabaie, 226 Fed. Appx. 702 (9th Cir. 2007)
Sure this case is a district court judge ruling on a motion in-limine, but the judge has done extensive research for you and cites to “published” opinions. So, the case is not dispositive, it is a source.