Judge will delete a sentence, replace it with "individuals perceived... as characteristics that were not uncommon for scientists"
it essentially says that people who knew the defendant missed the signs of his mental illness
Orman next directs to paragraph 35
Orman says sentences with "On one hand... on the other hand" are "pure argument" and should be deleted
Nelson says she remembers doctors testifying about the ambivalence as a common patient reaction to treatment.
Orman asks to add more, but judge tells him to move on
Judge wants to change paragraph to incorporate that it quotes Dr. Fenton about months of mental health decline
Next is paragraph 39. Orman says it references a HIPPA violation, and he argues that isn't mitigation and that language "even though" is argumentative in that paragraph
Judge says he'll take out a section from the first line
Just as he did for Orman, Judge tells Nelson to move on. HIPPA issue will be removed
Nelson rephrases, and both Orman and the Judge agree to the reformulation
@HumblePride: they're discussing here the instruction of theory of mitigation, which is not part of the arguments
Judge says he'll leave next mention of the parents the way it is
Nelson suggests replacing "in violation of HIPPA" with "without Mr. Holmes permission." Orman agrees and it will be done that way
Orman's next objection is paragraph 48. He says the last line includes "again exhibiting echolalia." He agrees there was testimony of it, but says the word "again" is improper
Judge overruled previous objection. Nelson says she doesn't care and judge will remove the word "again"
Orman asks to move backwards... Judge frustrated. "I was thinking great, we're going to move through it great..."
"I need to get an idea if we're going to keep moving back through this, let me know now"
Judge Samour clearly frustrated. "At which point do we just move forward?"
Judge offers to take a break
But judge warns it gives both sides less time to work on their arguments. Orman takes a second to discuss with his team