◆ SpookStack

min, that is a fact, but he wusg't naked about any conversation that ho had with this witnass, so this isn't proper rebuttal, KR, vSTUMSR3; MY theory is that the witness in response to direct exumination testified before this . court he had nevor seen this res, ondent ‘before, ‘The purpose of this testimony is to show ‘that by conversation, with this . SA tii NORE Nee Pee witness, or my purpose is by showing thut convorsation, to refute the atctement of Mr, Doyle. Ma. FAR30NS: Not proper {npeachmant If he had asked Kr. boyle if he had told this witness something, he might go into ite . we THS COURT; Objection « aust. ined to ite _&R, STEM SRS 1 | Ko further questions, The ieople wil rest your lionor, | oS KR. 2aksOhs; May it plesse the Court, i ¢esire to rocuest &t this tine thet the Court instruct the jury as to the law ralative to the right of tha ress ondent not to testify in his own behelf, and the consideration or Lack of in consideration of thet facet whieh tha jury have a right to eivas; this instruction to bs in such form as tha Court fesls it sught to be, WR. UsTHM3RS; and is it your Toquost that that instreetion ba given at this tine? coe “R, “EANSONS! Xo, in connect {on with the general” . instructions, i haven't submitted a formal recuest alone that line, SoC tt RR EB Soh a, See tee a ues Pa aay “ (arguments by couneel to the jury) (During arguments) MR. suRoONG; I don't think thers .s any evidence - 147 -