- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 12,093
- Reaction score
- 160,547
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.I believe there is only one chip that BK could bargain with in terms of getting a sentence reduced; and that would be to disclose an accomplice. AT's expert is expected to state that one person could not do all this in the time frame established by the Prosecution....That won't happen until well into the trial and immediately following that MIGHT be the time to open negotiations over the DP. It all depends...
I don't believe there is an accomplice and I also believe that at the stage of the trial when that opinion is offered the Prosecution will have established BARD that BK caused the deaths. In one of the recent exchanges with Judge Hipler, AT indicated that the defense was pursuing an alternate suspect which of course they would be doing whatever their trial/penalty strategy...Its barely possible that second suspect was in fact an accomplice. Disclosing an accomplice at that stage of trial would lead directly to BK testifying....The only other circumstance I can think of, that would lead to that would involve a guilty plea after inculpatory evidence was delivered.
Frankly, AT has created more than just a trail of breadcrumbs in terms of alternate theories; she has dusted an entire landscape in flour. For all those instances, AT has avoided disclosing a definitive direction or context that would exculpate BK....Which of course she needs to continue to avoid, it allows the prosecution no time to investigate and refute any such theories. Better to funnel that right on the jury, without the scrutiny of discovery.
MOO throughout
Could be wrong, but that was my understanding.