(1) An article discussing the costs of the trial - or at least the Defense side of it. I'm curious as to what the prosecution has put into this case. Much of the Defense cost is related to the fact that Virginia's discovery rules are set up so that prosecutors can withhold evidence from the Defense.
(2) The judge is allowing the rebuttal of expert psychiatric testimony by putting victims on the stand. Apparently, the attempt will be to show malingering by showing that the events did not occur as they were told to the psychiatrists by Malvo.
Not appropriate. If that is the point which the prosecutor wishes to make it should be done thru psychiatric witnesses who explain how the lack of facts lead them to the belief that Malvo is malingering. The point of putting victims on the stand is to raise emotions not to prove anything substantive. The irrational prejudice which will adhere to the process is beyond any miniscule addition to actual evidence.
However, to be fair, several of the Defense witnesses the judge allowed could be subject to the same argument.