one of the best I've seen

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48462249)

Some parts of the editing commentary. I disagree with. For example, the judge wasn't laughing about the officer's bullshit about the gum -- the judge was laughing because he felt it was time for the defense lawyer to move on to more substantive attacks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48462685)

the killshot, however, was getting the cop to testify there was no PC for a DUI arrest. the case ended right there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48462777)

But tomato tomato. It’s a nice video.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48462796)

So was the extended cross even after the confirmation of a lack of probable cause -- and the judge's patience with the extended cross that continued beyond that admission -- primarily because there were two brand new noob attys in the courtroom and judge recognized there was some schooling of them (and the noob officer) on cross examination going on?

Also it would have been interesting to see what the jury actually did with the case -- i.e. how effective was the cross to the jury. But the case was struck before the jury deliberated.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48462978)

at the end of the day, the entire cross wasn't to win on an ore tenus motion to suppress made during trial. it was to planting seeds in the jury's heads that the cop can't be trusted & there's no evidence the defendant was drunk. making the guy look like an idiot was part of the performance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48463004)

As to your second point, yes of course -- but the question I am asking is on a slightly different vector -- why did the Court permit the continuing cross in light of the surely anticipated motion to suppress/ dismiss that became viable after the cop's admission? Once a case is dead, most judges will just remind the attys that time is money and they need to do the needful -- i.e. defense stop your cross and just make the motion. (Also, why continue the cross once you've got the goods on the probable cause business and risk something coming out of officer's mouth that screws up his admission of no probable cause?)

I think defense counsel was permitted the lengthy and argumentative cross because there were two noobs in the courtroom and it was beneficial to the training of the new attys to see a full on cross, even if basically mooted halfway thru for all intents and purposes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48463020)

as it stands, the state can't refile the case like they could otherwise do in cases dismissed following a suppression hearing because the jury has been sworn in & thus double jeopardy has attached. this is the functional equivalent of a directed verdict, but the problem here is that an appellate court could rule that the trial judge abused his discretion thus a mistrial should be entered, meaning the entire process would start over.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48463492)

I didn’t watch your whole second link but this may be what happened.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48463705)

seems like this prosbro was totally asleep, checked out

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48465279)

All of the jurors are unconscious.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48462908)

When you don't have the law or facts you pound semantics like lil bit vs. a few.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5651252&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#48465845)