First, let's start with the fact that I agree with you on most of your points in general up to now. However.....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by guccilvr
Yes I know that there is no law stating they can't go back on issues in court.. but let's face the facts. If the DA did happen to have some DNA linking these kids to a rape, he's going to make damn sure he brings up in court how the defense said there wasn't any and yada yada.
|
Exactly who do you propose is going to take the stand to defend these statements? Is the DA going to put the defense counsel under oath? To what end? What judge would allow it? Unless one of the defendants gets out of control and says something to that effect in pretrial discovery (which would be monumentally stupid), there's no way to get this kind of statement admitted. As far as facing facts, that's my entire point - what facts are we supposed to face when we don't actually have any? All we have right now is what the defense is saying, and that's not someone that I necessarily choose to believe. The defense counsel has an agenda, and that's to do everything he can to make us believe in the innocence of his client. Maybe the results are what he's saying, maybe not. My entire point is that you shouldn't accept what he's saying as fact
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by guccilvr
A DA can put all the gag orders he wants on his staff, but the leaks will still come through. I guess the DNA question will be settled when the next round comes through.. should be today or tomorrow.
|
What leaks from the DA's office are you talking about? I haven't heard of any "unnamed sources" in that office making any statements. It's entirely possible that I've missed them, so I'm curious what they've confirmed or denied or even said. That would certainly lend credibility to whatever the defense is saying.