logicalgirl
Peace Hawk
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 16,024
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't have a lot of experience watching the judicial system in the States, so I've been puzzling this week about how the defense is going to work this case.
So, it doesn't appear to me that the defense has any additional evidence or witnesses to testify, which must mean they are only going to attack the evidence.
So moving along, the SA puts on their side, the defense attacks the evidence, the jury doesn't buy the reasonable doubt and ICA is found guilty.
Then we get to the mitigation phase, before sentencing. Baez appears to be lining up all kind of mitigation experts to say blah blah poor ICA, yukky childhood, controlling mother blah blah -so at this point is Baez admitting ICA is guilty??? This is the part I don't understand. He's using "only a few criminal convictions" (she's a good kid), her mother was controlling, her brother and father sexually abusing, etc etc., so this is why ICA can't be held responsible for killing Caylee? Or give her a lighter sentence even though she's guilty because she had all these problems so shouldn't be held as responsible as someone harder, tougher, etc., for killing her child as that other really rotten person?
Help me out here - how does this work?
So, it doesn't appear to me that the defense has any additional evidence or witnesses to testify, which must mean they are only going to attack the evidence.
So moving along, the SA puts on their side, the defense attacks the evidence, the jury doesn't buy the reasonable doubt and ICA is found guilty.
Then we get to the mitigation phase, before sentencing. Baez appears to be lining up all kind of mitigation experts to say blah blah poor ICA, yukky childhood, controlling mother blah blah -so at this point is Baez admitting ICA is guilty??? This is the part I don't understand. He's using "only a few criminal convictions" (she's a good kid), her mother was controlling, her brother and father sexually abusing, etc etc., so this is why ICA can't be held responsible for killing Caylee? Or give her a lighter sentence even though she's guilty because she had all these problems so shouldn't be held as responsible as someone harder, tougher, etc., for killing her child as that other really rotten person?
Help me out here - how does this work?