Thanks. But, again, problem for the defense is: EA says she was never in his car at all. So, that's going to have to be overcome if he is to avoid conviction. As sloppy and confusing as some of the DNA testimony has been, you still have on record EA's own testimony to the police about that evening and whether CM was ever in his car.
As far as I can see, if I'm a juror, that may be the point I would keep going back to: he says she was never even in the car, yet DNA evidence says she was - whether it was in the passenger's seat or trunk really wouldn't make a difference to me.
But, that's just me. Who knows what the 12 jurors there will think. I think EA's defense is doing the best they can; but, ultimately, it is likely his own assertions from the get go that could lead to his conviction.
