51³Ô¹ÏÍø

SAN BERNADINO, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 11: 00:12 Defense brought it up to make sure that people inform their witnesses not to direct comments at the defense. Mr. McStay did 3 events at that and we didn't object or tell the court, we didn't want to look like we're objecting in front of the jury but we take exception to that. And we ask the court to admonish the people to ensure their clients comply with that order. The first statement was when he said he was taken by him, referring to my client. This was a reference and attack on my client. That the killing of them was "for what? money? gambling? such a joke?" again attacking my client. The third was "At least you didn't delete the file!", that was attacking my collegue, Mr. Maleem who had an issue during closing. Now he is actually belittling or making fun of counsel. And in response to that, Mr. Eims actually encouraged it by saying "Yeah, that's kinda true". So, I believe that based on the prosecution's duty to make sure his witnesses do not volunteer any statement that be admissible. They're in violation of that. It's People vs. Shires. They also have a duty to guard against inadmissible statemenets. That is People vs. Figuredo. I would ask the court to admonish them to let them know that, that will not be tolerated any further with their witnesses. Any other future witnesses were not. I would ask the prosecution to uphold their duty and admonish them appropriately. 02:04 (Footage by Law&Crime via Getty Images)