Best online paralegal certificate program 2024
*******************************************************
Read the entire Parrish v State case here:
Listen to Baptiste v. State here:
Read the entire Baptiste v State case here:
Lawyers for the YSL Rico case are currently battling over which parts of woody Copeland’s interrogation statements should be admissible at trial. Copeland spoke to detectives multiple times in 2015 and those recordings could be valuable for either side, if allowed in court. But just as they could be valuable, they could also be quite damaging, as was on display today.
At issue was a seemingly innocuous comment that woody gave to detectives about the whereabouts of a gun that they had asked him about during an interrogation 4 months earlier. Woody told detectives that he was not able to produce the gun for them because the gun actually belonged to Shannon Stillwell, and woody had returned the gun to Stillwell.
The prosecution asked judge Glanville to allow them to play the snippet in court. The only problem, as pointed out by the defense, is that Shannon Stillwell is a defendant in the case and is currently on trial facing charges of gun possession as a felon. And as Stillwell was already a convicted felon during the 2015 interrogation in which woody said he had given Stilwell the gun, the implication would be that Stillwell had committed the crime of gun possession by a felon at that time as well. Upon hearing this, this information could prejudice the jury against Stillwell during his gun possession part of the trial.
The state argued that woody’s statement serves several purposes including boosting his credibility, as he proactively informed detectives about the whereabouts of a gun that they had previously inquired about, and that the gun possession itself was “intrinsic evidence” that is “inextricably intertwined” with the RICO case as a whole.
source
43 Comments