Correct, Amendola couldn't have forced the victims to speak to him before trial but he sure as hell could have tried, instead of just taking the OAG at their word. This wasn't a civil case, pal so your 90% rate doesn't apply. These were CRIMINAL charges. The defense absolutely has the right to try and depose/interview the alleged victims before trial.
Of course you don't have to depose every SINGLE witness (you need to prioritize based on how much time you have before trial-which in the JS was practically none after discovery started) but you sure as hell want to talk to the ones who will be testifying,
as alleged victims, against your client in a criminal trial.
These weren't just run of the mill witnesses that JS's defense failed to interview before trial, they were alleged VICTIMS of JS's who were going to testify that he abused them. There's a big difference. Apparently you're not a good enough lawyer to see the difference....
From a quick google search (
link):
The defense can gain significant benefits from
trying to interview prosecution witnesses rather than relying on their statements. These include the ability to:
- gauge witnesses’ demeanor and credibility
- ferret out details of witnesses’ stories and strategize as to how to handle their testimony at trial
- impeach witnesses who say something on the stand that’s inconsistent with what they told the defense
- establish a foundation for arguing witnesses who refuse to speak to the defense are biased against the defendant, and
- find leads for new evidence and people to interview.
Reinventing the Wheel?
Some defendants might wonder whether it’s worth it to interview a witness who has already given a statement that the prosecution has disclosed. But prosecutors and police officers sometimes omit or misstate information (either intentionally or not). Further, when law enforcement and prosecutors speak to witnesses, they aren’t likely to ask all the questions the answers to which the defense would like to know. And there might not be a record of all conversations witnesses have had with the other side.
Waste of Time?
It’s perfectly legal for defense attorneys and their investigators to interview prosecution witnesses in most instances. (Among the instances in which it’s not are those involving harassment or threats.) And even though prosecutors might not want their witnesses—including police officers and victims—to talk to the defense, they typically can’t stop them (though they may “inform” them that they don’t need to).
It’s generally up to witnesses and victims to decide whether to talk to the defense before trial. They might not be willing to talk, but a defense attorney or investigator who doesn't ask often doesn't know.
===========================================
From another
link:
A defendant, usually through their defense attorney, can ascertain statements and other information from individuals that the prosecutor intends to use as witnesses during trial. During the discover process, the prosecutor must provide the names and addresses of the individuals they intend to utilize as witnesses during trial, which gives the defense a clear indicator of who they should interview. However, the process of interviewing the prosecutor’s witnesses, which may include the alleged victim of a crime, is not always possible in certain circumstances. Under no circumstances should a defendant conduct their own informal interviews or attempt to contact victims of a given crime, which may be viewed as intimidation, another crime, by the courts.
Some of the preeminent laws and policies concerning defense attorneys interviewing the prosecution’s witnesses include:
- Prosecutors cannot mandate their witnesses to not speak to defense attorneys; however, they can strongly suggest that an individual not do so. However, prosecutors have no legal right to withhold a willing witness from speaking with the defense’s counsel.
- Prosecution witnesses are also under no legal obligation to speak with the defense either, and if invasive measures are used to obtain an interview, more crimes may actually be committed. Some of the notable circumstances of forced interviews on the prosecution’s witnesses occur during a deposition.
- Depositions are not common in criminal law, however, some states, such as Florida and California, have laws in place allowing the defense to subpoena a potential witness for a legally required interview under oath.
- The final option for defense attorneys to use to garner information from prosecutor’s witnesses is through the services of a private investigator. While public defenders offices do have private investigators, the demand for services means they will not be solely tasked with investigating your case. In these instances, having private counsel and the ability to afford the dedicated services of a private investigator are beneficial to those that can afford to do so.
Although prosecutors are required to provide witness statements during the discovery period, it is not guaranteed these witness statements are accurate, complete, or even from a credible source. Investigating the source of information, fact checking, and even obtaining another statement from a witness may expose serious flaws or other discrepancies in a prosecutor’s case.
=========================================================
Good God I really hope you've never defended someone against criminal charges...if you even are a lawyer
