Thank you for your reply. What does it mean when you add "necessarily" before "lying?"
I have to keep this simple because I obviously do not have the level of legal expertise that you have. Isn't this about just getting the evidence of alternative theories admitted? It seems like they have proven there was evidence of alternate theories and 3rd party perps.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF THE CRIME AND THIRD-PARTY PERPETRATORS
Just that I don't think they're lying as much as exaggerating certain things to make it seem like they have a more robust case than they do. It can be seen as similar to lying, but I don't think they're actually lying.
Yes, it's about getting evidence admitted for third party culpability. From the defense's own filing:
In short, the defense must provide evidence that shows the alternative perpetrator was connected to
the actual commission of the charged crime. While they have provided plenty of evidence that BH and crew practiced odinism and posted weird stuff on Facebook, they (in my opinion) have not met the bare minimum standard of actually showing their connection to the
comission of the charged crime. It's not just that they have to be connected in some way, they hav to be connected
to the comission of the crime.
A great example is some of the cases cited by the defense in support of their own motion. In Allen v State, the defense wanted to admit witness testimony that included a witness that saw the third party case the establishment with them prior to the crime (while talking about robbing the place), and immediately after the crime came and admitted they committed a robbery and killed several people in the process. They were only a couple of blocks from the store and were coming from the direction of the store. They stated the weapon they had with them was "dirty" and they needed to get rid of it. The witness had provided additional testimony regarding other crimes that was corroborated and deemed valid. The confession testimony was originally permitted under a hearsay exception after a hearing, but the witness then refused to testify, fearing for his own safety. The court then refused to admit the prior testimony of the witness. This was a clear error, because the third party had clear links to the actual commission of the crime.
Read Allen v. State, 813 N.E.2d 349, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
This is a stark contrast to the evidence presented for third party culpability by the defense for RA. Notably, they cannot put any of these individuals at or near the crime scene, much less actually link them to the comission of the crime. The defense's theory doesn't even make a ton of sense as many parts of it are internally contradictory.
All my opinion.