No matter how fast I read, I get farther and father behind! Please excuse me if somebody already posted this idea.
IIRC Flores testimony, he said he misunderstood what the ME had said about the bullet coming first.
The ME testified that the shot was probably last because from the angle of the shot from the forehead above the right brow, the bullet had to pierce the frontal lobe because, in young people, the frontal lobe is flush up against the skull. He said that the bullet would have incapacitated Travis or rendered him unconscious.
Then, Nurmi called for a mistrial, stating that the prosecution had changed the sequence. Somehow, by changing the sequence made null the argument of the crime being heinous and cruel.
Let's remember, Duncan, the first judge, ruled that the bullet being first (based on Flores' "mistake"), made the crime heinous and cruel.
Nurmi argued that if the bullet was last, the crime was not heinous and cruel, effectively removing the death penalty.
I recall this well because I kept thinking to myself that a bullet wound through the frontal lobe first was heinous and cruel while stabbing the victim 27 times and slitting his throat was LESS cruel? It made no sense to me at the time and it still makes no sense to me now.
The judge ruled that either way the sequence occurred, the crime WAS heinous and cruel. Thank you, Judge Stephens.
BTW, it turned out that the ME never listed sequence in his report and Nurmi didn't ask about him in his deposition/interview prior to trial. Also, the prosecution never mentioned sequence either.
If I'm wrong, I'm sure some great sleuthers here will be able to straighten my memories!