If the defense failed to get a cell phone expert - and that information is crucial to the defense, that might actually rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
This does seem to be the type of circumstance that leads to defendants getting a new trial.
I harped on this a ton in another thread. I couldn't give it up. I have probably written at least 8 messages about the lack of cell phone detail but again it was revealed in another thread, phone companies only keep 30 days of actual texts.
You have to get these by warrant.
Britt was under high level of scrutiny at the beginning. Not these guys. And not enough for a warrant.
Until 2014, 3 years later. Cell phone companies don't have this info period. They have who texted who but not what they texted.
TBI lost on this whole deal. Their fault.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
i can't believe the story this guy just old...Britt confessed but no one followed up?
If the defense failed to get a cell phone expert - and that information is crucial to the defense, that might actually rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
He said!?! Isn't all this hearsay from Britt?? :dunno: I don't understand?
I have a question and would appreciate your opinion. Is it possible that she could not find an expert that disagreed with the state's expert? Because, assuming there is only one truth about the call phones, if she is obligated to find an expert with a differing opinion, I have often wondered what that says about the reliability of "experts". Would you mind elaborating on that a little? Thanks!
My mother and I often laugh at all the "experts" on television news. I swear, a story could come up about underwater basket weaving during lunar eclipses and every station would have an expert.