Judge Michael Aloise served up a lot of "home cooking" for the Queens DA's Office during the Chanel Lewis trial --- what do you expect from somebody with so many connections to that office and the Queens County political establishment
Not only did his ordering a mistrial in the Vetrano-Lewis case pull the fat out of the fire for the prosecution, his earlier evidentiary rulings and strict limitations on the defense's cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses kept the Chanel Lewis team from presenting their best case --- and the good Queens machine judge was covering his own ass for a very flawed trial, one that was rife with reversible error.....
For all of their song and dance, and dog and pony tactics, the NYPD and the Queens DA's Office could not produce a single piece of evidence that Chanel Lewis was present at the time and place of Karina Vetrano's murder --- except for what has clearly been shown to be a coerced and very problematic "confession" by an intellectually challenged young person with special needs, who was first placed in isolation and then "interrogated" overnight without legal representation or any other adult representative present.
So far I have done plenty of commentary on the weaknesses of two parts of the "open and shut case" against Chanel Lewis --- first, the ersatz DNA "matches" to Chanel Lewis found in three places on Ms. Vetrano and/or on her personal possessions; and second, the questionable confession by the Defendant Chanel Lewis, which seems to have all of the facts wrong about the way Karina Vetrano was murdered and/or how murder scene looked. Now, let's look at some of the evidence that was not allowed to get to the jury that might have firmed up their joint several and collective inclinations to acquit the Defendant Chanel Lewis.
First, the trial Judge, Michael Aloise, didn't allow the defense to question prosecution witnesses about the many thousands of hours of video tape of the various approaches to Gateway Park, none of which showed a picture of the defendant entering into, or even at any location near Gateway Park, or exiting from it, at any time relevant to the murder of Karina Vetrano.
Next, we have had a chance to look into a defense analysis of vectors from the various cell towers around East New York and Howard Beach that would have yielded information that, if not clearly contradictory to similar prosecution evidence showing Chanel Lewis might have been near the murder scene, would have yielded an equal probability that Chanel Lewis was in a Brooklyn Park several miles away from the Vetrano murder scene at or near the time that Karina Vetrano was murdered in Gateway Park near the edge of her Howard Beach neighborhood. However, Judge Aloise would not allow the defense to question prosecution witnesses about the pings on vectors to a Brooklyn site where Chanel Lewis said he was around the time of Karina Vetrano's murder ( See "Karina Vetrano Murder Trial Wraps Up After Judge Blocks Video Evidence" by Max Rivlin-Nadler, 11/19/18, Gothamist [http://gothamist.com/2018/11/19/chanel_lewis_video_evidence.php]).
When the defense attempted to get the favorable cell tower information into evidence using an investigator, the testimony was cut off on a narrow issue of discovery and disclosure, because the investigator was referring to investigator's notes, and those notes had been demanded by the prosecution, but had not been turned over prior to the investigator's attempted testimony.
In addition to the cell tower evidence favorable to the defense, there was another "eye witness," whose testimony was blocked by the trial judge, Michael Aloise. According to the Gothamist report by Max Rivlin-Nadler, "... a Verizon employee who was working on a telephone pole along the path that Lewis told investigators during his confession that he had used to enter the park [was expected to testify that he] never saw Lewis enter or leave the park during the time the murder took place...." As with so many other rulings in this case, Queens County Justice Michael Aloise sided with the Queens County DA ruling that the Verizon employee’s testimony had “no relevance whatsoever,” and that it would needlessly prolong the trial.