opening. common sense. the bruising, right. how do you get all that bruising from one fall. that was very significant in their mind. they he also summed up on what you just asked me about and that was the circumstantial evidence having to do with hearsay. the problem, however, is that everything that was admitted in that trial with regard to hear are say was heard by appellate courts. it was admitted and as a result of those hearings on the appellate issues it was all legal and proper. how do you overcome that? jeff, can he overcome it? he can t. it is not going to be reversed on appeal. not only were the issues already addressed but you judge burmila as you know was very tough on the state. to tough on the state that he took out any possibility that there is reversible error in the case. judge jeanine: that is the only thing i will give him credit for. the prosecution there is no way this case is going to be reverse. going to get at least 40 years in prison and very soon they
they had the medical examiner testify to all those injuries but he never said how a single one of them may have been caused. not was caused but even may have been caused. judge jeanine: but he wasn t there. he can only tell the jury what he saw. it is up to the prosecution to say in closidence is this, is that and. but they can t say it. there is no evidence. have you ever seen a medical examiner not say this is consistent with being punched or getting struck with a blunt object. judge jeanine: yes, i have. did they convict him? absolutely. absolutely. good thing we have judge burmila. judge jeanine: what did you say? good thing we have judge burmila and not judge jeanine. southbound it isn t it a ft that all the hearsay statements the witnesses don t know each other and can t get together and conspire. they don t need to know each other. it happens with one person saying it and it was broadcast on the tv everywhere and then
what was interesting here is they had the medical examiner testify to all those injuries but he never said how a single one of them may have been caused. not was caused but even may have been caused. judge jeanine: but he wasn t there. he can only tell the jury what he saw. it is up to the prosecution to say in closing the evidence is this, is that and. but they can t say it. there is no evidence. have you ever seen a medical examiner not say this is consistent with being punched or getting struck with a blunt object. judge jeanine: yes, i have. did they convict him? absolutely. absolutely. good thing we have judge burmila. judge jeanine: what did you say? good thing we have judge burmila and not judge jeanine. southbound it isn t it a ft that all the hearsay statements the witnesses don t know each other and can t get together and conspire. they don t need to know each other. it happens with one person saying it and it was broadcast
they had the medical examiner testify to all those injuries but he never said how a single one of them may have been caused. not was caused but even may have been caused. judge jeanine: but he wasn t there. he can only tell the jury what he saw. it is up to the prosecution to say in closing the evidence is this, is that and. but they can t say it. there is no evidence. have you ever seen a medical examiner not say this is consistent with being punched or getting struck with a blunt object. judge jeanine: yes, i have. did they convict him? absolutely. absolutely. good thing we have judge burmila. judge jeanine: what did you say? good thing we have judge burmila and not judge jeanine. southbound it isn t it a ft that all the hearsay statements the witnesses don t know each other and can t get together and conspire. they don t need to know each other. it happens with one person saying it and it was broadcast
she had other motives. maybe she had it coming. before our eyes the criminal becomes the victim. in the news paper drew peterson a victim. judge burmila allowed the defense to crank up the smoke machine and fill the courtroom with so much haze the truth will be hard to see. and how is it that a victim is trashed and the criminal celebrityized? that we sacrifice the victim and protect the criminal? and why do defense attorneys do it? they do it because they can. they do it because judges like bumila allow it. a defense strategy succeeds when the jury stops thinking if the defendant is bad and starts wondering is the victim bad. and in a courtroom run by judge bumila you would almost expect the foreperson to stand up and say we the jury find the victim