The “muddy or muddy/bloody” argument can be found in the FM pg. 117Not being a lawyer, I wanted to ask: is trying to get a case dismissed on technicalities somehow not part of what they're supposed to do? Isn't part of their job to highlight things that were done improperly (by the books), or skipped over? Is this not a valid strategy included in any trial defense?
In terms of the FM - I think I've asked this before, and I'm not sure I fully understand it yet - is the D allowed to outright lie in their FM or otherwise allowed to bend the truth in some way? I'm asking because they were quite clear in their assertion that a witness did NOT say she saw a muddy & bloody man etc etc. (I forget which FM, probably the first) among other things. If she did NOT say that she saw a muddy & bloody man, then how come that is what was represented by the State in I think their SW? MOO because I've no idea where the links are to this right this second and no time to go find them.
I wonder what the families may say at the conclusion of the trial when the order silencing them is lifted? Actually, will it be lifted post conviction or lack thereof? Or will they be held to the gag until all the possible appeals have played out?
DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police
DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf