I thought in ID, the Defense must disclose any alibi they intend to present at trial well before the actual trial. No bombshells allowed that the State wouldn't have time to investigate and rebut.
Could be wrong, but that was my understanding.
That certainly is described within the rules of evidence as it applies to the presentation of an alibi, but to disclose an accomplice, you would have to confess to the crime. And the constitution (per the Fifth Amendment) trumps the rules of evidence.
What I was saying was: At this stage, confession alone would not be enough to shift the potential penalty from DP to LWOP. Some have suggested that disclosing the location of the weapon could be collateral in penalty negotiations, but I don't think thats sufficient to take the DP off the table.
To the prosecution a confession NOW would avoid some costs but most of the investment has already been made. And of course a confession removes any risk associated with a jury's vote...so if the Prosecution's case is strong enough, would they entertain a plea deal at this stage? I don't think so but of course, thats JMO...
Thus the question: What could be offered that would put the prosecution in a negotiating mode? And when would it make sense to make that offer, considering that the defendant would have to specify to their own guilt as well as furnish enough information to inculpate the "unknown" party?
As I indicated in the post: I don't believe there is SOD or an accomplice. I was trying to develop the theme: What would it take to get the DP off the table? Considering the defense's success record in terms of motions to date, and the bits and pieces of evidence WS and MSM have extracted from those motions and the corresponding verbal exchanges, I say: It would have to be something big and juicy.
And the prior post was a speculation on what big and juicy might look like.
JMO; No supporting MSM