Once again the prosecutors in the Plantation Cops mortgage fraud trial object to witness testimony that's favorable to the defendants...

.

As the title states, we've come across another instance where the defendants in the Plantation cops mortgage fraud case have a witness who's favorable to their case and as we've seen before, the prosecutors don't want the jury to hear about it.  In this instance the witness that's come forward isn't a paid expert or someone that's been offered immunity or any other kind of deal by the government.  The witness that the prosecutors don't want the jury to hear about came forward on her own to testify about the fraud that mortgage brokers (and cooperating government witnesses) Matt Gulla and Rene Rodriguez Jr. had committed when doing her home mortgage.


From the very onset of the Plantation cops mortgage fraud case, the defendants had maintained that they loan applications they submitted were truthful and accurate and that the mortgage brokers then doctored the applications and ultimately forged the borrowers signatures on the documents that were then forwarded to the banks that funded the mortgages.  Now, I'm sure some of you would say that this sounds like a bogus "I knew nothing about what was going on" defense, that's where this new witness comes in.  Apparently the new witness that the prosecutors don't want the jury to hear from had the very same problem, she submitted accurate 1003 loan applications to the mortgage brokers only to find out later that they had doctored the applications and forged her signature on the new fraudulent applications.  Interesting, huh?  Consider that this new witness has no motivation or incentive to come forward with this damning testimony against the brokers, she's simply coming forward to set the record straight about how these criminals operated and how they did the very same things to her as the defendants in this case allege were done to them.


So what's the problem?  Aren't the defendants entitled to have this witness testify before the court and jury and set the record straight about the crooked ways of former mortgage brokers Matt Gulla and Rene Rodriguez?  Why are the prosecutors fighting so hard to have this testimony excluded from the trial, after all isn't this trial about a "search for truth" rather than just achieving a conviction by any means necessary?  At this point the prosecutors arguments are moot as the judge has allowed the witness to testify before the jury.  I was rather surprised considering how the judge has ruled in other similar circumstances throughout this case.  We'll have to wait till tomorrow to hear what the witness has to say...