Between those first two excerpts of Colin's, there's this. I, uh, do not practice criminal law. So maybe @feralnietzsche.bsky.social has other thoughts. But this does not strike me as a strong opening
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
This is insanity, and frankly the Supreme Court ought to be naming the defense counsel whose ineffective assistance would be basis enough for reversal of the conviction.
You CANNOT tell the jury, in your opening, about facts you could only get from the testimony of a witness you aren't calling!
This is the type of stuff that should get an attorney some serious bar discipline. (and the defense some required CLE hours and supervision) It won't. But it should.
Go read the case for descriptions of the evidence the prosecution introduced, but basically they brought physical evidence from the dead body (multiple items of clothing, a shovel) that had been in the river and smelled so bad that they had to end court early
Anyway, the court takes all that and says "what the fuck, defense counsel, why didn't you object? But you know what? This is so bad, and so pervasive, and so destructive to any prospect of a fair trial, we can and have to reverse anyway"
Basically, EVERY lawyer involved in this was a disaster
And in fact the prosecution was so egregiously outside the bounds of the law that the court held jeopardy attached in the first trial and the defendant could not be retried.
Comments
You CANNOT tell the jury, in your opening, about facts you could only get from the testimony of a witness you aren't calling!
And based on Defendant's silence at trial, apparently
Basically, EVERY lawyer involved in this was a disaster
State-level criminal law produces some of the wildest legal drama. And some of the most insane lawyering.