apartment. But the defense is not even allowed to tell the jury what crime that jailhouse witness was convicted of and plead guilty to. Armed robbery, breaking into homes? Can't say it. Jailhouse witness can lie and say "Mandi called me Mama Jules." Julie Madara claimed at a sentence hearing that a drug dealer forced her to rob people, same thing she says Mandi confessed to. But the defense can't tell the jury who this witness is, why she is in jail, what else she has done, what she has said in the past. According to Judge Recksiedler, case law won't let them. Some judge in some case didn’t like the outcome when the jury knew what crime some participant, probably the defendant, had been convicted of. And that judge decided that his agenda is more important than Mandi's Constitutional right to put true facts in front of the jury for her defense. Mandi's lawyers were not allowed to ask the other witnesses "Did anybody provide you a benefit for testifying here today? Like they provided to the jailhouse witnesses?" Why can't they ask? Judge doesn't like it? Judge knows where this is going? Judge has a preconception that they weren't provided a benefit? Nobody alleged that these witnesses were provided a benefit? Nobody alleged that Mandi used a black glock. No sane honest person anyway. The major points of Kaylee Simmons’ testimony, such as Mandi used a black glock, directly contradicted physical evidence in the case. And the judge had no problem letting the prosecution ask Kaylee questions, when the judge knew Kaylee's answers had no bearing on reality and would be more likely to confuse the jury. So it was a trial by judge. The fact that Mandi's lawyer Bark is not alleging the witnesses were bribed, and prosecutor Stone is alleging Mandi planned a robbery, is immaterial so far as the jury is concerned. It is not a reflection of any fact, it is only a reflection of Bark being less shameless than Stone. At the point where Mandi is presumed innocent, there should be no preconception that Mandi planned a robbery. So the jury can no more become confused that the witnesses were bribed, than confused that Mandi planned a robbery. Whether one is confiision, and the other is a fair concept to leave the jury with, depends on the preconception that Mandi planned a robbery. Judge Recksiedler weighed and blocked or admitted testimony in light of her preconception that Mandi was guilty, and the witnesses were not bribed. That is a trial by judge. Does the judge know the witnesses weren't bribed, any more than she knows whether Mandi planned a robbery or used a black Glock? The least we can say is the witnesses know whether they were bribed or not. Whereas the jailhouse witnesses were not inside Mulrenin’s apartment and don't know what happened in there. Judge Recksiedler is used to civil court, where the lawyers agree to a long list of facts before it ever gets to the jury. In a criminal trial, the judge and the prosecution can't agree in advance on what the truth is before the jury hears it. The jury is the finder of fact. The witnesses need to tell the jury whether they were bribed, what the judge or the prosecution thinks is irrelevant. What if a witness was given a plane ticket to come from out of state to testify? Is that a benefit? Judge thinks that's too complicated. The jury can't figure out if a witness who was flown in to testify was given a benefit. Can't confuse the jury with mindbenders like that. But the judge thinks its okay to ask Kaylee what Mandi told her, when she knows Kaylee is going to say Scott hid in the back of the car and Mandi used a black Glock and signed "fiick you" at Walmart. All of that is extremely confusing for the jury because it’s impossible. Actually, the prosecution agreed to not have Kaylee say Mandi signed "fi1ck you" at Walmart. Judge would have allowed it even though she knows the "fuck you" signature doesn't exist. This is supposed to be a trial by jury, not a trial by Judge. Not a trial by what the prosecution tells the judge they want the jury to hear. Its the defendant's right to choose what the jury hears, that is his right to a trial by jury. If the prosecution can't prove their case when a jury hears a witness was flown in from out of state, if the best evidence they have is that fragile and hard to understand, maybe they should let the defendant go. If the jury is that fucking dumb to not understand that, the judge should have declared a mistrial. Prosecutor Stone told the jury "Just because witness Madara says Mandi says Mulrenin took this drug G, doesn't mean it happened." We can't get a correction like that, if a witness like Scott Jones accidentally says he received a benefit for testifying? Prosecutor Stone can't tell the jury "Hold on, just because Scott Jones said he got a benefit for testifying, doesn't mean he did." The judge wasn’t going to let some crazy thing like that happen, when it is the defense asking to use their Constitutional right to question witnesses in front of the jury. The jury is there to hear what the Defendant wants to tell them. But Judge Recksiedler says no, the jury is here to hear any crazy confusing IV-50