Darlie was charged with both boy's murders but the decision was made to have seperate trials (as per Mulder's summing up), with the 2nd dispensed with presumably after the successful result in the first. Is this correct? This would have given the prosecution a second bite at the cherry if they messed up the first trial but its quite unusual to do this - was more made of this pre trial? what was the justification? If she was charged with both, someone would have had to come up with a good reason for seperate trials on cost basis alone, surely? The only difference in the evidence was Devon's blood drops on the back of her shirt - maybe that is damaging but its not the only evidence the prosecution put forward - if the drops hadnt of been there then they wouldnt have indicted her at all?
Do you think that there is a possibility that the prosecution's motive in seperate trials was to see if she cracked up on the stand and implicated Darin during the first trial, given that she was being left to 'face the music' alone. Then the prosecution might have had the potential for indicting him on the other boy. I think the evidential rules regarding spouses are the same over there as they are here, in that a spouse is competent and compellable to give evidence in criminal proceedings against an accused spouse in this type of case but not if they are jointly charged. If they'd have charged them both from the outset, they could have both said nothing. If she'd implicated him in the first trial, she could be compelled to testify against him if he alone was indicted re the other boys murder.
Do you think that there is a possibility that the prosecution's motive in seperate trials was to see if she cracked up on the stand and implicated Darin during the first trial, given that she was being left to 'face the music' alone. Then the prosecution might have had the potential for indicting him on the other boy. I think the evidential rules regarding spouses are the same over there as they are here, in that a spouse is competent and compellable to give evidence in criminal proceedings against an accused spouse in this type of case but not if they are jointly charged. If they'd have charged them both from the outset, they could have both said nothing. If she'd implicated him in the first trial, she could be compelled to testify against him if he alone was indicted re the other boys murder.