To me that is always the defining point between the State and the defense.
The State has to give specific reasons why it is not reasonable that anyone else committed the crime while the defense can have the Anyone but JY Theory. They can try to paint a picture where the village idiots...
I would be shocked if he took the stand. I can't see taking a risk of a more incisive cross to counter the new information introduced at this trial.
That said, he does seem to have the salesman mentality.
I dont see it as exoneration, just an issue that introduces potential doubt to the jurors.
I have to opportunity to read lots of jury research. One of the reoccurring themes from jurors who deliberated in cases that hung or were NG is If the State doesnt know how the crime was committed...
I don't think that they will. Remember the old rule, "Don't introduce a question that you do not already know the answer to."
Have you had a chance to go to the court room lately?
I think that it would confuse the jury.
It would be low hanging fruit for the defense to create reasonable doubt with statements like:
The State cant even tell you if he acted alone or had help, Which is it?
How did is coordinate with this mysterious accomplice? We have documented all of...
That is fascinating. The procedures that I am familiar with use a simple formula and do not assign blame for the dissolution of the marriage.
Family down the block broke up. The husband had had multiple affairs. The wife had nine women ready to testify about the relationships. The judge...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.