Opinion ID: 2199758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: The court's instruction to the jury during Rodriguez' cross-examination of Rios.

Text: Counsel for defendant Rodriguez during his cross-examination of his co-defendant Rios sought to establish that Rios had made statements in his confession which were inconsistent with his testimony at the trial and thus to attack Rios' credibility. At this point, the record shows there was colloquy between the trial court and Rodriguez' counsel concerning this cross-examination. Nevertheless, no objection was interposed by the prosecutor, and counsel was permitted to complete his cross-examination of the witness on this point. As nearly as we can decipher the argument made here, the complaint lies because the court nullified any good that this attack on the witness' credibility might have effected. Or, in other words, counsel's efforts were set at naught because the court commented: I have told this jury and I tell them again that these statements only affect the individuals who gave them and cannot be used as evidence against any other defendant that may be named in that statement or confession. There is no claim made denying the propriety or legal correctness of the court's comment, but the prejudice is said to emanate from the fact that the remarks nullified counsel's endeavor. If the applicable law had such effect, we can see little justification in criticizing the judge for having invoked it. The difficulty springs from the law itself, which is not even charged with being erroneous. It has not been made clear to us how the application of an admitted rule of law constitutes prejudicial error or why it suggests a reversal.