There is going to have to be a lot of synthesizing information and putting it in an understandable narrative for the attorneys' closing arguments.
I think Brewer was enough. Think about it:
The first inquiry for the jury is very simple: - Did Ross deliberately murder his son or did he forget him in the car?
I think when all of the state's evidence is considered, there are not many people who thought the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross planned this and deliberately murdered his son. This is the most circumstantial of circumstantial cases - the only thing the State presented is a possible motive, and that evidence was weak.
The jurors just need to be given an alternative and an explanation that this same thing happens every summer by accident and Ross' case is no different, and there's even scientific research that explains it.
The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They don't have to put on an equal amount of evidence proving it wasn't intentional. They on,y have to raise the doubt, and they have done that through a list of witnesses who never saw any hostility or resentment in the father/son relationship and with an expert to explain how people can tragically forget something so important.
The harder question for the jury will be whether forgetting Cooper was caused by criminal negligence.
