JB:
Well I disagree strongly with Judge Perry's ruling in that mater and in that regard. There are several ways. First of all, in a trial, the defense doesn't have a burden if proof. That's, that's to, that's key and fundamental with everyone's individual rights. Most importantly, you never know how things are going to unfold in a trial. There was evidence that we put on, that we believe was inductive of sexual abuse. Ummm. First of all, cross examination. George was cross examined on the issues of sexual abuse, and clearly he didn't admit it. The jury was free to believe or disbelieve what he said, and that would be the same if Casey took the stand and said "I did not murder my child." The jury could believe it our not believe it and that's still considered evidence. Secondary, we had other issues. The fact that Casey was 19 years old, had never been to a gynecologist, had irregular periods from the age of 10, and her mother is a registered nurse. We admired that a possible evidence, of circumstantial evidence, of sexual abuse. There was the issue with her pregnancy, with her, where her family his her pregnancy and she never went to a doctor until she was 7 1/2 months pregnant. And third, yes, ummm, Casey could have taken the stand and testified to all of that so there was a god faith basis for every subtler thing that was spoken at trial. Now, here's the thing. The defendant, in any case, has the, it's their right to testify and it's their decision alone. Had I not of said any of this, and later on Casey had said you know what Jose, I'm going to testify. I dint care what you say. I would have had no choice. She would have had to testify. So, it would have been tremendous malpractice on my part if I had not mentioned the rest of the story and what we believed would have , would actually piggies. We had had the possibility of Casey testifying, in fact, it was a string one, until we later believed we didnt need it.
DP:
But it's true, the defense doesn't have the burden of proof, but you, as an officer of the court, dui have a duty of candor to the tribunal.
JB:
Correct
DP:
To not present evidence that don't have god faith basis for believing
JB:
For which I just said I did.
DP:
From a psychological standpoint, you gave very flimsy reasons. The fact that she didnt go to a gynecologist until she was 19 years old, linking that back to say, well therefore you can presume that she was sexually molested. Jose, that is a huge leap.