- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 16,024
- Reaction score
- 144,104
The jury might find it more logical than a SODDI defense. If she has nothing to be gained by the SODDI defense, then why not the accident defense, even if the odds were really really bad?
The DT doesn't have to give a "reason" why it happened or even acknowledge that ICA knew about how it happened. They can simply attack the forensics, and present a state of mind defense and it looks like it might be heading that way. ( I am really really looking forward to Finnell's reason why she wants the shrinks in the guilt phase)
The job of explaining how what where and when belongs to the SA, rather than the Defense. IMO of course.