0

On the 12th of August 2012, 15-year-old Bobby Moore III was shot and killed by Little Rock (AR) PD officer Joshua Hastings. I highly recommend reading this article that covers the case pretty well, as it delves into massive corruption and racism within LRPD, but I will include only the details that matter. Hastings was fired and then tried for manslaughter. In his first trial, Hastings took the stand to defend himself. In response the prosecution put a forensics expert on the stand that completely dismantled Hastings. Despite the thorough debunking, two jurors refused to convict, leading the judge to declare a mistrial.

In the second trial, Hastings decided NOT to take the stand. In response, the prosecution decided not to call the expert witness that debunked Hastings in the first trial. The reason the prosecutor gives for not calling this witness was that he did not need the expert to refute what Hastings said, because he did not take the stand. But, wouldn't the expert witness still be able to testify that the account given by Hastings, under oath, in the first trial, was bogus? And couldn't the expert still testify as to what the evidence says, for example where the shooter was most likely standing when the fatal shots were fired? And, what about statements made before trial ever begins, such as to Internal Affairs or other investigating authorities? It just seems odd to not call your star witness. Was there truly no point in calling the expert?

2
  • 1
    Testimony is required to be relevant. Given that the defendant's testimony will not be before the jury, in what way is it relevant to argue that such testimony was false? Does it make the existence of a material fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence? Apr 17 at 21:24
  • I think OP is actually asking whether the defendant's testimony can be re-introduced. The expert's testimony seems pretty obviously relevant, though. Defendant said he's not guilty because X, expert says X isn't true. Defendant is therefore more likely to be guilty. I imagine this is why the testimony was permitted at the first trial.
    – bdb484
    Apr 18 at 3:03

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.