In a Kansas Court of Appeals opinion released last Friday, Mr. Calderon-Aparicio sought review of his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to sell, distribute, or deliver. He made multiple arguments challenging his conviction. In one section, the Mr. Calderon-Aparicio argued his rights were violated because the police used an unfair form of eyewitness identification.
However, the Court of Appeals was quick to foreclose this argument–the court pointed out that Mr. Calderon-Aparicio’s attorney did not object to the eyewitness identification when it was presented at trial. Unless an exception applies, for unfair evidence to be challenged in the Court of Appeals, a defense attorney must first object to its use during trial and preserve the issue for appeal. Because the defense attorney did not object to the eyewitness identification, the court concluded the defense attorney had decided to waive this issue.
Moreover, the court went on to note that the defense attorney not only did not object to the eyewitness evidence, but he also asked the witness questions on cross-examination. As a result, the court found the cross-examination was a defense strategy. This defense strategy also served as further proof of a waiver of any evidentiary objections.
Obviously, in every trial, strategic decisions must be made in representing an individual. Here, the Kansas Court of Appeals examined the actions of the defense attorney and concluded he had waived the evidence issues surrounding the eyewitness identification. This case highlights the importance of having competent and skilled trial attorneys to represent you. For an attorney with the knowledge and experience to capitalize on the mistakes of the prosecution and methodically examine all sides of your case, contact Bell Folsom, P.A. as soon as possible.