amicuscurie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2023
- Messages
- 1,606
- Reaction score
- 9,790
I agree. Legally, Donna’s trial would be a brand new trial, and there would be no reference to what Charlie said previously.I believe Charlie has to testify and he will. If he says Donna knew of the extortion and helped arrange the payouts, I don’t know how that would lead to Donna being indicted. First of all there is no way that Rashbaum will do anything that would implicate Donna. Donna is pulling the strings in this defense - we can count on that.
Secondly, there is no way Charlie’s testimony would be admitted in Donna’s trial as proof she was in on it. Charlie would have to testify at Donna’s trial to get that in, which is not going to happen. State can’t compel him while he’s waiting out his appeals.
MOO
I think there’s a chance Charlie won’t testify in this one. That’s why it’s really important that the state make its case without reference to Charlie’s theory. I think they’re just not trying hard enough to do that like they did with Katie. If Charlie doesn’t testify and incriminate himself, they’re going to be left with the case they’ve made. Based on what they’ve done so far, it might seem a little confusing and incomplete. I’m only basing that on some comments here by people new to the case who seem confused about the importance and direction of certain lines of questioning. And the people on here are probably smarter than the average juror. (I bet Charlie’s jury consultant was told to look for people who weren’t very bright, or rule out people who were)