Name_Withheld
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2021
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 266
depends... is that is an effective tactic or not? again - the defense alleges a vast conspiracy. collecting blood in solo cups isn't police 101 - but time was of the essence and it doesn't feel like the actions of a conspiracy member.
harping on stuff like that vs. the "dog bites" - might start to make some jurors think the defense is just throwing slop at a wall and that might hurt.
look if the defense can prove those are dog bites - the whole case looks different. that alone might be enough to sink or break the case. blood in cups is nonsense... unless the defense is alleging mystery blood or whatever.
Solely my opinion here. Is it an effective tactic? I guess that depends on whether or not the defense can introduce reasonable doubt to at least one juror.
I don't think the defense, at this point, is trying to establish a vast conspiracy but simply trying to introduce reasonable doubt while pointing out that standard investigative techniques, evidence collection, and procedure haven't been followed to a high standard.
I think the responding and investigating officers may have been a bit out of their wheelhouse with regard to the enormous evidentiary documentation needed to collect and preserve evidence and maintain strict chain of custody. It gives the appearance of incompetent police work. While that doesn't absolve the defendant of guilt it's not designed to. The prosecution has to prove guilt...that's where the burden lies. The defense just has to punch enough holes in their case to make a determination of guilt based on the evidence a questionable decision.
I'm enjoying the respectful back and forth of this forum.