When I took my first serious look at this case, some six or so months ago, and worked though the existing discovery file, I thought to myself, the State's got nothing. But discovery wasn't complete, perhaps there was critical evidence not yet out.
When the pre-trial Frye hearings took place and the State presented their inept expert witnesses, I thought, the State's got nothing. Judge Nelson agreed, and disallowed their testimony.
When I heard the State's opening statements, and heard them describe the "facts" they said they would prove-knowing, with discovery effectively concluded, that there existed no evidence to support those representations-I thought to myself, the State's got nothing.
When the State rested its case, and a few days later the defense did the same, and still there was nowhere to be seen a coherent, compelling, fact-based narrative of guilt-much less one supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I thought to myself, the State's got nothing.
And this morning, when the State made their bizarre and desperate reach for murder 3 based on child abuse-properly denied by Judge Nelson-I thought to myself, that's the act of a State prosecution team that's got nothing.
This afternoon, throughout a couple of hours of closing argument by the lead attorney on the State prosecution team, Bernie de la Rionda, the truth was finally as concrete and undeniable as a sidewalk to the head-the State has nothing.
This afternoon I heard what was perhaps the most disjointed, fact-free, histrionic, and ineffective closing argument that I've heard delivered by a State prosecutor in a murder case in more than two decades of practicing law.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/states-closing-argument-two-hours-of-raising-doubt/
There's no happy ending here. But I hope the jurors are the kinds of folks who can do their job, and apply to the facts presented by the state to the law.
When the pre-trial Frye hearings took place and the State presented their inept expert witnesses, I thought, the State's got nothing. Judge Nelson agreed, and disallowed their testimony.
When I heard the State's opening statements, and heard them describe the "facts" they said they would prove-knowing, with discovery effectively concluded, that there existed no evidence to support those representations-I thought to myself, the State's got nothing.
When the State rested its case, and a few days later the defense did the same, and still there was nowhere to be seen a coherent, compelling, fact-based narrative of guilt-much less one supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I thought to myself, the State's got nothing.
And this morning, when the State made their bizarre and desperate reach for murder 3 based on child abuse-properly denied by Judge Nelson-I thought to myself, that's the act of a State prosecution team that's got nothing.
This afternoon, throughout a couple of hours of closing argument by the lead attorney on the State prosecution team, Bernie de la Rionda, the truth was finally as concrete and undeniable as a sidewalk to the head-the State has nothing.
This afternoon I heard what was perhaps the most disjointed, fact-free, histrionic, and ineffective closing argument that I've heard delivered by a State prosecutor in a murder case in more than two decades of practicing law.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/states-closing-argument-two-hours-of-raising-doubt/
There's no happy ending here. But I hope the jurors are the kinds of folks who can do their job, and apply to the facts presented by the state to the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment