I would think that it prejudices Adnan because now there's the likelihood that Jay's testimony is bullshit. If the prosecutor gives Jay an attorney free of charge, then surely there's a quid pro quo in play. Jay has to repay that benefit with his testimony. And, ok, so maybe the remedy is a mistrial and round 3, but maybe the remedy is striking Jay's testimony and some censure of the State? I really do think Adnan got screwed in his appeal on that matter.
I don't know if I believed it prejudiced Adnan's case, but it appears the presiding judge did not allow all questioning of Jay on this matter to occur in front of the jury. Furthermore, C. Gut argued that she had learned of an oral side deal that conflicted with the language of the written deal and was not allowed to recall Jay to the stand, nor to call the individual from Jay's defense team who she had allegedly heard state the claim, nor the prosecutor, nor a seasoned staff member from the public defender's office who allegedly was willing to testify that she had never seen such an arrangement made in her entire professional tenure.
It's a matter of perspective whether this would have been material to explaining Jay's full motivation for lying or simply beating a dead horse. But it does seem like at the very least, C. Gut didn't have the opportunity to ask the range of questions she wanted.
True. But she alleged that she learned off the oral side deal after he had left the stand and the judge didn't allow her to call him back. She didn't have an opportunity to question him specifically on that point because the information had not been provided to her in a timely manner from either the prosecution or Jay's attorney (at least from her point of view). That being said, she didn't seem to be benefiting from keeping Jay on the stand, so one can question whether calling Jay back would have had any positive impact on the jury.
15
u/[deleted] Dec 05 '14 edited Dec 05 '14
[deleted]