Quote:
|
Originally Posted by guccilvr
The defense would never claim the DNA was invalid. That would destroy any credibility for a trial. If there was DNA, the defense would be trying to come up with some sort of consent story I think.
|
I'm not sure that I understand this statement - do you mean that the DA would never claim the DNA was invalid? I don't see how any defense statements one way or the other would destroy any kind of credibility. The defense can make all the statements it wants outside of court (so can the DA, but that's typically a bad idea) without having to bring anything into the courtroom. You see it done all the time.
And for the record, the defense did claim that the DNA results showed no matches.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2404002 so I really don't get your point.