I find it amazing that either the prosecution did not object or the magistrate did not uphold that objection.
Firstly, the officer would have realised that his answer would be admitted as soon as the objection was raised and would have been more truthful in his testimony, secondly; if the objection were upheld, freeman's tactic would have failed.
Really brings out what he says about prosecutors who can't do their job!
the officer's credibility it seems was already in question in the case. freeman only showed the magistrate the possibility that the officer might be lying.
He did! After about 5:20 he gives the example of that case. And really, if the involved police officier is blatantly lying about anything -in the courtroom!-, no wonder he can get the case dismissed.
I find it amazing that either the prosecution did not object or the magistrate did not uphold that objection.
Firstly, the officer would have realised that his answer would be admitted as soon as the objection was raised and would have been more truthful in his testimony, secondly; if the objection were upheld, freeman's tactic would have failed.
Really brings out what he says about prosecutors who can't do their job!
gloucesterharry 2 years ago
the officer's credibility it seems was already in question in the case. freeman only showed the magistrate the possibility that the officer might be lying.
matthew860 3 years ago
asking if the officer was chewing gum is totally irrelevant to the case, the magistrate should have just asked him to spit it out and continued.
BlueMicrowave 3 years ago
He did! After about 5:20 he gives the example of that case. And really, if the involved police officier is blatantly lying about anything -in the courtroom!-, no wonder he can get the case dismissed.
mipmipmipmipmip 4 years ago
but he did not reveal the inner secrets ......
harshvardhan1 4 years ago
love the guy..great interview
boroeka 5 years ago