It’s within the judge’s purview to directly question a witness. FRE 614. It’s more common in criminal trials than civil, but the judge can ask a witness questions. It’s usually done to preserve the integrity of the court eg in this case he is eliciting information as to whether the item is hearsay or not. Other times the court will question if they believe the witness may have been tampered with or engaged in activity not permitted.
ETA: a judge can even call witnesses him/herself if they so choose.
I’m guessing it’ll be really interesting when we get to the witness crisendo.
As you’re nearing the end you really want to put in attention grabbing stuff like a last licks or better like a piece of music which climbs to dramatic conclusion near the end.
My perspective, his testimony about what he heard on that phone call makes the sequence of events, and existence of a third shot very questionable. Certainly there’s reasonable doubt there was a third shot fired at RG. Which to me suggests charges of attempted murder of RG are a not guilty.
I have to say it seems like a really interesting wrinkle that MB might not have known that LK/RG were back in the house, since the fire marshal did not notify him.
Maybe MB went down to the house expecting to find it empty so he could search it or something.
The fire marshal definitely looked a little uncomfortable about not notifying MB regarding the change in the occupancy status of the house.
My husband is not a licensed electrician but he has done electrical work in our house including hardwiring smoke detectors; they have all passed inspection. (In Massachusetts a homeowner does not need to be a licensed electrician to do electrical work.)
Also, for those asking about a video of repairs being used for the abatement: we are currently putting rooms in our basement. The building inspector came to verify that the building code was being met. He took pictures of both plumbing and electrical work to show those inspectors. He said they would get back to us is there was a problem with the work. So, apparently a picture or video can be used for approval, at least when they are taken by the building inspector.
It sure sounds as though MB drove up to a house he expected to be empty. And was instead jumped by an attacking dog, an attacking LK, and an attacking RG.
That poor man… They set out to destroy him, and then set things up to ensure something happened to him even worse than what they had originally hoped. I doubt that LK getting shot was part of their plan but once it happened, they conspired to work it to their advantage - and Keystone Kops played right into their hands…
I may be wrong, but I think the fire inspector has to come out to inspect the smoke detectors as well there must be a fire extinguisher in the kitchen and MUST sign off. At least this is the case for a closing on a house in Morris County.
Yes; the defense can cross examine the state’s rebuttal psychologist.
Remember that in an affirmative defense like insanity, the defense is affirming something (he was insane) instead of negating prosecutor’s case. How can the prosecution counter the defense’s claim that MB was insane before the defense makes their claim?
As usual, I am not a lawyer. But I wouldn’t have expected to hear from the state expert until after the defense experts.
I think MB knew they were at the house because RG was in the barn that morning in an argument with the farrier and if he thought they were not there, why did he drive up to the house like a bat-outa-hell, or however LK described it?