Whether the court erred in allowing the expert witness to testify without her notes and denying the defendant the right to review the notes as part of the testimony

No question identified. : -_ PRESENTED ; 1D. STATE WIWESS Emily CUNNINGHAM'S TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT WIINESS W27H6UT HER NOTES ZA THE GourTROM AND NO? Zu INZOENCE ZA THIS CASE? | Q), WHAT'S ZS THE COURT'S POSITIg4 WAN IT Come Ta AN EXPERT WZ7NES BASED THERE TESTE MOY GN NO7ES TAKEN DURING AN INTERVIEW, BUT THOSE NOTE VENER BEEGOME A PART OF THe TRIAL? BD. INAS THE COURT AWARE THAT MS. CUNNINGHAM WAS TES7TENG WZ7H6UT HER NOTES ? Aub IWHAT REMEDY SHOULD FE Courgr HAD PROVIDED? ZF p : NY, INAS THAT Ré SATZ5FACTORY UNDER THE Law ? % * Rem eby 4) WHEN THE COURT Found OUT up > ae 7 THE = . . NOTES, WAS THE COURT ZN ERROR WHEN ee TION Hab RECEDED MS. CUNNINGHAM s MS. CUNNINGNAMS NGZES ° > 5 : or gz MFORM Ye PRosécuTIGN To INTRODUCE ina en SINT EVIDENCE? SEEING Fee COURT ZNFoRm an a AT SHE NEEDED ZF > sen” MED NS COMA ING HH, ) } 40 PRODUCE THES & NOTES For TRIAL. ia SJ. WAS Te Fi tg in 7 & JURORS DENZED A Fare DETERMINATION oF We Fray ; ENZED THE RIGHT Fy REVIEW MS. CUA ZHestam! TACT WHEN They WERE 8 : =). . 3 ANO785 ¢ . Y SIDE Ze (UE TESTZNGNY OF FE AUREED VIG Ty yy ? Duke PRR THEY SZLE > . THESE DEl1 Bs m5. CUNHINGHANIS TESTZ man y AOMISSIBLE EVIDENCE ZTE WE BERATION, RODUCED AS EVIDENCE, SEEING Sux pacen 1, NOES WHERE AevER ‘ BASED HER TESTZMOMY ON HER pi} R NGTES ? THE MCVANT ASSERIS THAT WETS Nor >mpr > . INoWaNT. ~ ATTEMPTING 73 REARGUE zs Chaz 1 2 THE BEST OF A2$ ABIL zz, IS TRYING. 7% ‘ B7AZN A proper pove: 7 © FoRmutae HS CLAIM aH onpen PER RENIAK FRom TRZS CouRT. . a