I came across this article, actually an appellant decision from Pennsylvania, during a continued search for any meaningful articles and/or statistics on intraoral gunshot wounds.
This case is interesting legally because the verdict was overturned due to a claim on ineffective counsel for failing to object to a completely improper and highly prejudicial argument by the DA.
What's really interesting, though, are the facts of the case. Read for yourself and see if you don't agree with me that they are eerily similar, almost unbelievably so, to the facts in CA v. Spector. The facts, allegations of sex play with the gun, even the opinions of the Defense experts.
It is so similar one has to wonder if Team Spec(ta)tor came across it in their research.
[SIZE=-1]http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s54033_06.pdf
[/SIZE]
This case is interesting legally because the verdict was overturned due to a claim on ineffective counsel for failing to object to a completely improper and highly prejudicial argument by the DA.
What's really interesting, though, are the facts of the case. Read for yourself and see if you don't agree with me that they are eerily similar, almost unbelievably so, to the facts in CA v. Spector. The facts, allegations of sex play with the gun, even the opinions of the Defense experts.
It is so similar one has to wonder if Team Spec(ta)tor came across it in their research.
[SIZE=-1]http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/s54033_06.pdf
[/SIZE]