Opinion ID: 2295861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Trial Court Refusal to Listen to Reasons for Defense Objections

Text: Appellants cite 33 instances in which they say the trial court refused to listen to the reasons for defense objections before ruling. Implicit in this argument is the contention that the procedure for registering objections during a court recess or at the end of the day was largely pointless, since the court already had ruled. Also implicit, of course, is the contention that the court ruled incorrectly and prejudicially  a contention which the record belies. In ten of the instances alleged, the court did listen and gave reasons for overruling defense objections  once sending the jury out of the courtroom in order to do so. [53] In four instances, the court already had given reasons when earlier denying the same objection by another counsel. [54] In four other instances, the court obviously knew the reasons for defense objections because of earlier proceedings, e. g., a defense motion to suppress. [55] Finally, in all three instances where the court expressly refused to hear objections, in the belief that the government would tie up the testimony later, the government in fact did so. [56] Three typical examples from those which remain will serve to demonstrate why appellants' contention here lacks force. Counsel for Khaalis complains that the trial court overruled his objection during the prosecutor's opening statement without hearing his reason. [57] The court, however, did permit counsel to approach the bench after completion of the prosecutor's statement, listened to counsel's motion and argument for a mistrial, and ruled  correctly  that the opening statement had been proper. On another occasion, Khaalis' attorney asked Ms. Keyes, one of the hostages, whether she had offered the prosecutor any correction of her earlier statement to the police. She indicated that she had. After counsel asked her to elaborate, she stated: THE WITNESS: Officer Salinas said that I couldn't identify the man with the machete even though  MR HILL: [Interposing] Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Please continue. THE WITNESS: Even though he was the one who cut me loose. Counsel for Khaalis then went further into the issue, trying to impeach the witness, whereupon she testified  with defense objections summarily overruled  that the reason she could not see the appellant at the time was because she had been concentrating on the process of cutting, and the machete was so big that [she] just couldn't [sic?] see his hand and the knife. As indicated, counsel himself had asked the questions leading to the answers to which he objected. The court, in fact, permitted further cross-examination after the statements had been made. There was no judicial abuse. Still another instance concerns Officer Daly's testimony on direct examination that appellant Adam had said something to him at the time of arrest. On cross-examination, defense counsel impeached the officer by eliciting a statement that Adam had said nothing when arrested. On redirect, Officer Daly reconfirmed that his notes reflected that Adam had said nothing. The court quickly overruled a defense objection during this colloquy but did permit counsel to cross-examine for a second time about the matter. This was a minor bit of testimony which reflects no prejudice from the court's overruling a defense objection without hearing the reason. [58] As the foregoing examples make clear, appellants' arguments about the court's refusal to listen are without merit.