Sorry for my slip of the tongue in my rant !! I do recognize that the defense has nothing to prove per se, but they do have a legal obligation to defend their client to the best of their ability .. I guess my point was, IF your client is as innocent as you say she is, if you have a "bombshell" that will provide the reasoning behind what she did and why she did it, then STOP abusing the system and let's get down to business. This is a VERY expensive game they are playing with my hard earned dollars, as well as many others here I'm sure. I have a child in the public school system here in Florida who is losing courses and activities left and right. I have 2 siblings in LE in Orlando (who, by the way are VERY good friends with the lead investigators on this case - and VERY tightmouthed too - darn!!) watching their budget get cut left and right and it just frankly makes me ill to watch. Again, NO jury is ever going to be perfect and that's what I meant about standing on the strengths of your case, be it prosecution or defense. Yes, I definitely believe you have a right to exclude those who are obviously not good potential jurors, but to play such games is just plain wrong.