bellesnwhistles
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,651
- Reaction score
- 4,906
I think they mean body "fluids" ?
Yes, his point was that the DNA was too large to be touch DNA, likely a bodily fluid i.e.; blood, saliva
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think they mean body "fluids" ?
4:13p.m. local trial time :drumroll:
Am I correct in assuming the reason that the judge and the prosecutor keep trying to stop the defense attorney from going down the "no proof of sexual assault" road is not only because it means EA's other sex-related stuff can be brought in, but really because it sets the defense up for grounds to appeal? Meaning, the defense failed the defendant because he opened that line of inquiry? I'm sure the prosecutor would LOVE to go down that road, there's some juicy stuff there, but he realizes the defendant will likely win an appeal based on "bad defense." I hope my question makes sense...
Yes, it would give him a good case for "ineffective assistance of counsel" and could result in a mistrial.
Am I correct in assuming the reason that the judge and the prosecutor keep trying to stop the defense attorney from going down the "no proof of sexual assault" road is not only because it means EA's other sex-related stuff can be brought in, but really because it sets the defense up for grounds to appeal? Meaning, the defense failed the defendant because he opened that line of inquiry? I'm sure the prosecutor would LOVE to go down that road, there's some juicy stuff there, but he realizes the defendant will likely win an appeal based on "bad defense." I hope my question makes sense...
He's not on trial for the other sex-related stuff, so it wouldn't be allowed. He's being tried for aggravated kidnapping here.