Judge Cahill needs to be replaced

[Ocelot II]

13. Without knowing more about this, I would think that the statements

are admissible as business or other records if they are deemed relevant (that is, more probative than prejudicial). If so, and the witness acknowledges on cross-examination that they made the statements but without being able to explain them, the prosecution can get them to elaborate and explain on redirect. Of course the defense knows this and will be careful not to ask a question on cross if he knows the witness will be asked to explain their answer on redirect. Answering "I don't know" can backfire badly, and it's not a good answer unless the witness really doesn't know. It's not fucked up at all. A good lawyer - and the prosecutors seem to be very good lawyers - understands the rules of evidence and the strategies for using them.