IMHO, I think part of the reason they let her ramble was for possible perjury charges, but I think the main reason they let her was to see if she would bring something up herself that maybe had been objected to prior to the start of trial, or even add information that they didn't previously have.
I get part of what you're saying, not sure about what you mean by bringing up something that had been objected to prior....do you mean information not allowed into the first trial? Because if she had done that, there would have been objections, I'm sure.
I noticed a when couple of times she started rambling...embellishing on this or that detail in her own defense, I was thinking that any attorney should object. But they would wait, Angela would pace, and then cut her off at a certain point. I remember when she tried to sneak in that her first husband had snuck cases of Jack Daniels into the family court judge (or something like that), there was a little flurry of objections and even her defense attorney looked blanched that time. The objection was sustained but I don't think they asked it be stricken. A lot of people were starting to worry that she was even rehabilitating herself up there. Now I realize that was to let it all go on the record for future reference. And that tells me they might be planning on using it, and if they do use it, they will have to call her to qualify it, I think.
In other words, I think (may be wrong) they can use the tape and phone conversations without her, but as regards any direct testimony, they would have to call her to the stand. Either to prove certain points against Elizabeth or to impeach Tammi for whatever reason.
But basically they just let her go on and on. Looking back, there are lots of ways I notice the prosecutors were very crafty and the defense, apparently asleep to the idea of "strategy", failed to anticipate those things or when they happened, just let them go.
Well, she won't be "serving herself" at a new trial, she will have already been convicted, so that gives her a lot more leeway to say anything that prosecution thinks will point toward blame/conviction of Elizabeth.
There's probably A LOT of information that can come in at this trial that someone might have thought would "prejudice" jury against Tammi before. Because they are no longer prosecuting HER. What's not judged relevant in one trial might be a real gem in another.
Again, the charge of conspiracy contains the activities of two or more persons, so if the heat is now off Tammi, so to speak, she might be more able or willing to talk about things that weren't brought out, as you say, "new information". SO...an important factor, IMO is that she no longer has to be as cautious about what she says since she's already been convicted. We have seen she is not shy or unwilling to talk - she has a tendency to make lots of self-serving statements, which may turn around back on her before she realizes exactly what she has said, but in that trial she will have nothing to lose. A wise prosecutor will have figured that out. It would be interesting to speculate on what a defense attorney would advise her about testimony, not that she would pay attention.
Maybe somebody else here can think of some examples the types of issues which weren't discussed at her trial but could be brought out at Elizabeth's?
I see I have a tendency to ramble, too. Feel free to ask me to shut up, anyone. :blushing:
