However, it's not my opinion. It is CT law that the primary person charged does not need to face prosecution or conviction in order to bring conspirators to trial. It's not a conspiracy defense. The game doesn't change because FD is dead. All evidence introduced will be the same. I am trying to find out what, in your opinion, has changed due to the death of FD. Why would the trials be any different? I am curious what you are basing your conclusions on besides the implications you believe you heard on the video. The commentator said something along the lines of the defense would try to cast doubt that JD is dead. The defense was going to do that anyway most likely. I'm just not seeing how FD death affects anything.
OK, this is what has changed since FD died...........
State had what they believed to be a strong case against FD for murder of his wife.
State also had a case against the other 2 for various things involving them in what they believed was their strong case against FD.
The case they have against FD is just that, a case, until it is heard by a jury and judgement is handed down.
What that means is that in the eyes of the law FD has not committed a crime of murder of his wife UNTIL a jury of his peers hands down a guilty verdict.
Which is never going to happen now.
As the state can never PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that FD murdered his wife, they can't try other people they believe helped FD murder his wife
because they have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jennifer was murdered BY FD.
Because, while they have ample evidence she was murdered, until FD were to be convicted of it, he has the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
You can't be an accomplice to someone who murdered their wife if you can't prove that person actually murdered their wife.
To prove FD murdered his wife, there needs to be a trial, the prosecutors can't just have a strong belief that he did it.
To be an accomplice the actor needs to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have murdered his wife, the prosecutors can't just go to the judge and say "hey, we really really believe FD killed his wife and now we want to prosecute these 2 as accomplices, even though we never actually made our case that she was murdered and that FD was the one that did it, we are now going to prosecute these people for involvement in a murder we can't prove happened by someone that we can't prove did it.
I don't see why you are so hell bent on arguing with me, it is my opinion, and neither mine nor yours is going to change whatever the outcome is, nor is wishful thinking or arguing with me. so why not just respect that others have different perspectives and that it isn't your job to change my mind?
Editing to add: I have an example for you out of real life I just thought of. There was this kid in North Carolina Pazuzu Algarod who was going to be tried for murder, he killed himself while awaiting trial, and his girlfriend was tried and convicted as an accomplice, but there was a witness to the event of the murder, and a witness to her involvement. Under that circumstance certainly there would be no change in the charges, but without anything but circumstantial evidence tying these people to the crime and no possible way to convict FD I just don't think the conspiracy charges will stick. But we shall see, won't we?