Thursday due to the lead detective being allowed to repeatedly say at his trial that a person seen in footage of the crime was indeed the defendant.
Detectives, led by lead investigator Yolanda Holmes, found several eyewitnesses to the crime, as well as security camera footage of events surrounding the shooting, the decision says. They also found a jacket in a relative’s home that visually matched one wore by the gunman. When she did, though, Holmes on multiple occasions used Todd’s full first and last name as the person in the footage and called him “the shooter.” She also said the jackets were the same.
The jacket was never tested for DNA, nor gunshot residue, and while detectives found eight bullet casings from the scene that were fired from the same gun, they never found the gun. And no fingerprints were found at the scene, either on recovered shell casings or parked vehicles, the decision says.That led Holmes’ opinions to improperly bolster the eyewitnesses’ credibility. And Todd’s defense attorney did not object to the repeated mentions of Todd’s name as the person in the video.
If the testimony of a lay witness as an expert witness was appealable, how come the defense didn't object (I bet there's an evidentiary rule to that effect)
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: ExpressNews - 🏆 519. / 51 Read more »
Source: TODAYshow - 🏆 389. / 55 Read more »