6.Defense Exhibit 129 Admissibility Ruling
21 linesMR. MADSEN: Judge, we attempted to move State's ID -- or excuse me, Defense ID 129 into evidence. There was an objection. The Court ruled that we could not. I've had it marked as a Court's Exhibit. Obviously, our position is that the law enforcement was attempting at that point in time to preempt a mental health defense and that's why they asked the 38 questions. While he wasn't given the Powerpoint, those are the Powerpoints that are associated with it. We received those from the State during the discovery process and we believe that we should be allowed to put in those associated slides explaining what they were trying to do. And to deny us the ability to do that is to deny Tim due process, the right to present a defense under the Sixth and the Fourteenth.
THE COURT: The reason I didn't let it in was during the preliminary hearing and this hearing, he testified I was given these questions on the way down to Alabama -- or Mississippi. I was told just to ask them. He didn't have any background material. He didn't know what they were for. He was just to ask them and he did. So he didn't have any of that basis to ask them. He wasn't trained in that, didn't have any idea or knowledge of that from the preliminary hearing. And that's why I said they're not relevant. The questions he asked are the questions he asked and those are in.
MR. MADSEN: Sure. And our point was he got those later through a lead sheet, the entire thing, so he is familiar with them now and that's why I was trying to introduce them afterwards.
THE COURT: And I still don't think they're relevant through him. I'm going to maintain my ruling, they're not relevant through him. At the time he used them, he read them.
MR. MADSEN: And Judge, in the same vein, I know the Solicitor is going to try to introduce some stills from Wal-Mart from a video. And, obviously, Sergeant Creech wasn't there for the video, so we would object to those under that same vein.
MR. HUBBARD: I haven't offered them yet. I'm going to offer two still shots from video. He's the lead investigator. All evidence goes to him. And I was going to bring it up at the appropriate time.
THE COURT: I thought the Wal-Mart guy did that.
MR. MADSEN: He did, he put in the video.
MR. HUBBARD: Well, law enforcement got it. So just two still shots of what's already in. I don't understand --
THE COURT: The manager that works at the mattress store, he's the one that identified all that.
MR. HUBBARD: Yeah.
MR. MADSEN: And like I said, he's saying the chief investigator responsible, that was the same thing that I'm arguing for 86.
MR. HUBBARD: Except this investigator used this information as they continue their investigation.
THE COURT: We'll see.
MR. HUBBARD: And I'll explain why.
THE COURT: Okay. Y'all ready for the jury?
MR. HUBBARD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Bring in the jury.
(Whereupon, the jury came into open court at approximately 4:10 p.m.)
THE COURT: All right. Solicitor.
MR. HUBBARD: Thank you, Your Honor.