lin
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,694
- Reaction score
- 0
Snipped and bolded by me.
I think the key is the 'reasonableness' of any alternate explanation but forward by the defence in the circumstances of the case and that is what I meant.
However, if the defence is putting forward an alternative explanation for any piece of circumstantial evidence then they are merely offering a different interpretation of the same evidence that the prosecution has offered their interpretation of. Both sides need to explain why their interpretation of any piece of evidence is more reasonable, but I don't see why the defence would have to 'back up' their interpretation with further evidence when the prosecution does not. To illustrate what I mean, the prosecution might say 'the defendant's father has testified that he last saw Caylee at around xx time on June 16. She was in the care of the defendant and left the house with her. That is the last time Caylee was seen alive. The witness clearly recalls the time of day, the clothes the victim was wearing, the conversation with the defendant and the hugs he gave to his daughter and granddaughter before they left the house. This is reliable evidence that the defendant was the last person seen with Caylee'. The defence might counter with 'the witness's recollection of the events of that morning is unreliable. He has stated that he can remember precisely what the victim was wearing and carrying when she left, and the conversation he had with the defendant, but is unclear about what TV programme he was watching at the relevant time. How likely is it that a person can remember such precise details about what someone was wearing on a date that was a month prior? Can any members of the jury remember what clothes a family member or close friend were wearing on a date a month ago? If it is not likely to you that the witness's recollections about the victim's clothing on June 16 are reliable, what reliance should you place on his other testimony about the events of that day? This is not reliable evidence of the fact the prosecution is attempting to prove.'
Both sides are using the same evidence (GA's testimony) but putting forward different arguments as to the inferences that may be drawn from it. IMO, the defence is no more required to back up their version of this evidence with further evidence than the prosecution is.
Would you please use a different example? I didn't quite grasp your point and didn't get help from the illustration. Testimony is one of those things the jury weighs for credibility and I don't think you're showing a different interpretation of that evidence so much as attacking the credibility, at least to my mind. Jurors can believe or not, in whole or in part, any testimony. Maybe the meaning is there and I just don't get it but would much appreciate a different example. TIA