Right. If George said in his border BCI interview that he was up until midnight watching movies, then said on the stand he was in bed at 10 pm, that is a big discrepancy in George's testimony and would make the jury doubt his testimony.
That is normally when a prosecutor will hand the defendant a copy of the interview transcript and have the defendant read it and ask him to explain why he is now changing his story.
I expected this to be done, that there would be transcripts and maybe even recordings of this interview that would prove to the jury that George said things at the border that now he is changing his story on. This is standard 101 lawyering in getting the jury to doubt anything the defendant says on the stand.
You are catching them in lies, you are showing they are making things up, you help the jury distrust what the defendant says.
I don't think this was done which means all the jury has is Canepa saying it. They at least needed the agent who interviewed George to say it, hear it directly from him, that could carry weight with the jury.
The jury might disregard any discrepancies between what George said to LE and what George said on the stand without anything to back it up. With only Canepa saying it.
This is one reason why I will be angry with the prosecution if the jury acquits George. I expected the prosecution to present enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This was important evidence that needed to be proven to the jury. What George said he did that night and the times he said he did them and then to show he completely changed his story about it, matters.
If I was a juror and the prosecution showed proof that George gave several different stories to LE that don't match up to what he is now saying on the stand, I would doubt all of his testimony. I would have reasonable doubt about his testimony. That now he is making up stories just to look good in front of the jury.
