07-21-2012, 02:01 PM
(07-20-2012, 12:52 PM)Duchess Wrote:(07-20-2012, 12:30 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: defense is going to HAMMER the unknown DNA.
That unknown DNA is so troublesome to me. I'm thinking it would be very easy to create reasonable doubt with that.
Unfortunately, I have to agree.
By the way, with regard to this statement: "Not once did she (Roman) say Williams was innocent of the crime. It seemed as though she was almost saying to the jury, "Williams did it, but he's gonna get off once I convince you that the rules of the trial mean you have to let him go."
… that is the way it has to be presented. A defense attorney cannot testify to their client's innocence as part of their presentation. If they could, they would have to be sworn, take the witness stand and testify under oath and be cross-examined about their personal knowledge of the evidence. Instead, they predict in opening statements what the jury will/may hear, and they characterize the evidence in closing argument. And they repeatedly stress the prosecution's burden of proof.