holding that the government’s introduction of witness testimony after it had initially rested was not prejudicial to the defense because the testimony “was no more damaging . . . than it would have been if the government had presented it earlier”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the government’s introduction of witness testimony after it had initially rested was not prejudicial to the defense because the testimony “was no more damaging . . . than it would have been if the government had presented it earlier”
- denial of motion for mistrial will be disturbed only in “extreme situations threatening a miscarriage of justice”
- ”[T]he government was under no duty to disclose the names of its witnesses before trial.”
- "A decision allowing the prosecution to reopen its case is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring:
The trial judge granted the prosecutor’s motion to reopen on the strength of representations by Officer Brown which proved to be untrue. Whether Brown lied or simply “blew it,” this situation is less than edifying and should not be readily countenanced. I agree with Judge Terry, however, that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion, especially since Rambert could have requested a continuance but did not do so. Accordingly, I join in the opinion of the court.