I consider FCA's written statement given to police the night of June 15, stating that she gave Caylee to the Nanny, and whatever else she wrote on her written statement, as evidence submitted by the prosecution. That statement may be a pack of lies, but it was evidence for the trial......
IMO, the trial judge finds evidence either admissible, or non-admissible. the PT could have objected to those "drowning" photos, and then I guess there would have been a hearing or some kind of discussion as to whether or not they could be used. They PT was not allowed to use ALL of the "partying" photos of FCA that they wanted because JP ruled they were not relevant in time for this case, as they were before the 31 days, therefore they could not be submitted as evidence in this trial.
IMO, to me, CA's "mis-truth" testimony about the chloroform searches was evidence presented by the DT to bolster or further their case. CA's whole testimony, for both the PT and the DT, was "evidence" in this case.
IMO The jury is supposed to weigh all of the EVIDENCE presented by both sides in their deliberations. It does not have to be only be expert testimony ........ The testimony of every witness in a trial is considered evidence for the purpose of that trial.
IMO opening statements are not considered "evidence", facial expressions by the attorneys or the defendant, etc. is NOT evidence, etc.
I am looking purely at evidence presented during a trial as a legal term here, technically, what was evidence......what was admitted by the Judge and presented by both the DT and the PT at the trial.
or am I totally wrong here?? maybe I am, this is just what I see as evidence.
IMO, MOO, etc.
ETA: I was just answering a question here, will not post in this thread about this any longer,........