[nickcarraway]

You make it sound like this is a bad thing? Should prosecutors deliberately have such officers testify?

By the way, you make it sound like the officers and the list are automatically guilty of something bad. Do you think any good police officers might be in a position where some defense attorney can question the credibility.

[mkjessup]

You make it sound like this is a bad thing? Should prosecutors deliberately have such officers testify? By the way, you make it sound like the officers and the list are automatically guilty of something bad. Do you think any good police officers might be in a position where some defense attorney can question the credibility.

1.) If prosecutors have the truth on their side, that should be enough, regardless of who the officer is testifying. If an officer isn't credible to give testimony, they're not credible strapping on a gun and being expected to enforce the laws in a just and fair manner.

2.) A good defense attorney will always seek to question the credibility of any witness, be they law enforcement or not.

3.) If it isn't a bad thing, why would prosecutors be insisting on keeping their secret "list", secret?