The defense attorney for Jonathan Broyhill continues to cross examine the lead detective in the Broyhill murder trial.
Mr. Arbour—one of two public defenders assigned to Broyhill—again motioned the Judge for a mistrial saying that “…this man deserves a fair trial—and he’s not getting one now…”  He also asked for the Judge to step aside or to at least appoint another judge to decide if he should step aside.   The judge denied both.
The point of contention:
Only one of three taped interrogations have been admitted into evidence. Arbour calls into question prosecutorial misconduct and on two other occasions (before Friday’s drama).  Arbour has asked for a mistrial because of this.
Arbour contends that on those other two tapes have exculpatory lines of questioning that could shed light on why his client murdered Jamie Hahn.
By not allowing the jury to hear the other taps—the prosecution is possiblly able to pick fruit from the poisonous tree.
That poisonous tree is relevant to the hearsay rule in where Broyhill was given his Miranda rights but may have been under too much medication to understand those rights.  Information gathered from those interviews would normally be deemed inadmissible and any questions asked at a later date (from the answers to those questions) could be deemed as the fruit from the poisonous tree. 

Arbour says “either use them all – or throw them all out.”