pull down to refresh

Under Federal Criminal Procedure Rule 16, the defense must only provide the prosecution with the names of expert witnesses and their statements ahead of trial if it has asked the prosecution to do the same. If the defense does not move the prosecution to disclose its expert witnesses, the defendant's expert witnesses may remain undisclosed too, or so the rule says.
In Storm's case, the prosecution asked the court to order reciprocal disclosure, absent of any request made by the defense – a misapplication of the law, the defense argued, pointing to Storm's right to preserve the confidentiality of his defense strategy, which Judge Failla dismissed as “gamesmanship” and “parlor tricks.”
I'm primarily a spectator of fictional law proceedings so I wasn't aware of this rule. I don't know how many times I've heard "Objection! Judge, I wasn't made aware of this witness before now."
This is the extent of my knowledge of the law
reply
Sustained!
reply
If the prosecution is breaking the Procedural rule, the whole case could be thrown out. Did they, in fact, break the rule or are they just litigating the possibility of breaking the rule. The article says that Storm is fighting a ruling by the judge in the case. By what I see, he should have no troubles with a ruling in his favor. The defense owes the prosecution next to nothing, ever.
reply