So, the Judge wasn't buying it. After an impassioned speech by Mr. Hummel, Mr. Saunders got up and basically shut it all down. First, he apologized again for indulging in what even he admitted wasn't the best line of questioning, but added that it really didn't matter in the long run since basically, even if you throw out this portion of Mr. Arneson lying about something, there are other things that he's admitted to lying about. It was the "Chad Hummel is throwing a hail mary to try and save his client after a disastrous turn on the stand" defense and the Judge agreed. She said that she was willing to give a curative instruction to the jury about this whole matter, but that there would be no mistrial. And then she added that this was not the first time that Mr. Hummel has objected after the fact to a line of questioning and requested a mistrial....it was the "I'm on to Chad" line of reasoning. And the Judge agreed that Mr. Lally hadn't really had a good listen to the compelled statements of Mr. Arneson, that he'd done the right thing by chucking them to another lawyer and that, in the end, nobody had really been prejudiced by the whole thing. As for Mr. Arneson, he's back on the stand tomorrow morning to answer more questions from Mr. Saunders. And given the fact that Mr. Saunders spent some time testifying today because of Mr. Arneson, I imagine that he's not going to be in a good mood when he resumes his cross examination.
Also expected on the bill tomorrow, Bert Fields. He was here today, ready to go along with his trusty entourage of lawyers. It's possible that his testimony on direct may be some of the most interesting of the trial if Mr. Hummel decides to really let it fly and ask the questions that the government has so far avoided. Tomorrow, maybe the trial will finally be about be about the lawyers and not about Pellicano, who was really just the tool they hired to do their dirty work.
