- Jan 1, 2015
- Reaction score
I wasn't sure what the State meant by Direct Evidence when they were debating an acquittal today. See the definition of Direct Evidence in my quote? No, I don't think the State has to define it as such, not sure. The Judge seemed to agree they do have enough Direct Evidence. Hope this doesn't post twice again. You need to go back and edit one, but you can't delete the entire post. Oh, snipped by me to reply also.
You are not aloooone - my posts have been doubling and even tripled earlier today argh.
I know the definition of direct evidence, lol. . I guess my question is more procedural. I know they don't have to preface evidence by using that phrase, my question is more like CAN they do that in court: "Direct evidence proves (or will prove) blahblahblah" and then list what they say is the actual DE. Sorry, sometimes my brain just doesn't make it out my fingers, lol!
Example: "The State will prove the guilt of the defendant by presenting overwhelming evidence that includes a video of the defendant blowing kisses at the camera while he turns to shoot his victim. Other evidence we will present is a collection of 483 audio tapes of the defendant's diary where he plans and details every moment leading up to his shooting his victim."
Something like that - is it kosher to lay it out just that bluntly in either the Opening Statement or Closing Argument?
State says: "He's guilty because of 1,2,3,4...345"
Defense says: "He's not guilty because of a,b,c" or whatever they pull out of their...hats
I've seen many trials and actually never thought about this, so I'll go back and watch some random trials Openings and Closings.
Can each side present a comprehensive report so to speak. A PowerPoint presentation listing all bullets or facts and photos.
A report with an index, page numbers, evidence numbers, references, etc.
This girl can (and does) dream.