Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appellate lawyers argue trial court improperly limited cross-examination of witness Octavius Beatty
Summary
At oral argument, appellant's counsel said the trial court prevented defense questioning about a witness's later conviction and underlying conduct, leaving a factual 'void' the prosecution exploited; the state said the voir dire sought to introduce prohibited propensity evidence and the trial court acted within its discretion.
At an appellate oral argument, Seth Seagraves, attorney for appellant Caprice Pete, said the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of witness Octavius Beatty by barring questions about the facts underlying Beatty's later conviction for possessing a firearm. Seagraves told the panel he reserved three minutes for rebuttal and that his briefs raise six issues but he would focus on two: limitations on cross-examination and prosecutorial remarks in closing argument.
Seagraves said Beatty did not speak to police after the shooting, was not on any witness list for three years, and only later was arrested and convicted after being seen throwing a gun from a moving car. “If you were there and he…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
