Well, what do you think the prosecutors could say on the stand?
They can't tell about other people's testimony, that would be hearsay. (IANAL- so MOO)
They didn't witness the crimes.
AFAIK there is no reason to call the prosecutors as witnesses.
MOO
I would not think so. What would they be witnesses for?
YEAH true, seems black and white but, in this unusual scenario of all these cases being engaged by an entangled web.
Now that Lori has a conviction I don't see how it shouldn't be part of her next trial.
Having SAY....Rob Wood come to the stand and state that he successfully prosecuted her.
Why should it be prejudicial?
Its true and related. IMO.
Before heaps of posts remind me about due process and fair trial and defendants rights.
I know it, so not necessary to tie up the thread with explaining it at a deeper level.
When the cases are linked so intricately, would it be out of the question the Idaho Prosecution making an appearance and if that is definitely a no go, would the investigators in Idaho be witnesses or would they share their files and body of work and not be a seen presence.
There just seems like there is so much cross over to deal with moving into ARIZONA.
Killing everybody for insurance money before and after Charles death. (Possibility Joe Ryan too)
Such an important part of his demise is what happened around him that has since been adjudicated.
moo