While it is always good practice for counsel to raise known objections pretrial, and counsel may be compelled to do so by order of the court, Rule 3.190 does not require Sparkman to object pretrial to raise the instant issue. The first issue presented is a purely legal question - whether Sparkman’s objections to Brock’s statements had to be made pretrial. The trial court ruled that Sparkman’s contemporaneous objections were untimely because Sparkman should have filed a pre-trial motion pursuant to Rule 3.190 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure: “Now the defense wants the court to hear in round numbers somewhat less than a hundred objections they have to the state’s two and a half hour taped statement when the grounds for these objections were known some fifteen months ago.” The court considered the objections waived and refused to address them on the merits. The prosecutor explained that defense counsel knew that it would take a full day to edit the tape and that the court did not want the jury waiting that long. The prosecutor also excised two portions on his own, which as an officer of the court he felt needed to be removed. 4th DCA 2005) to see why… Sparkman and the Tapeįirst Comes the Tape, Next Comes the Objectionĭuring trial, when the state offered the videotape of Sparkman’s statement to Brock, Sparkman objected Defense counsel admitted that the prosecutor had asked him to review the tape and provide his objections pre-trial, but he declined to do so. Second, I think Judge Perry made a rather large boo-boo…
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |