Quote: The defense may wish to claim that the combined sample was mishandled by the FBI lab and therefore may have overlooked a fourth party’s DNA (e.g. an ‘intruder’).

Someone please tell me when there was time for an “intruder” to enter the dwelling, collect a knife, silently sneak up to the second floor, sexually assault – whether against his will or in acquiesce – Mr. Wone, take him to the bathroom – which was not in the guest room/office – stab him three times, and while he was bleeding to death, make him take a shower until he died, then dress him, take him back to the guest room/office, put him bed, and finally, silently sneak out of the house.

*Note* said intruder’s actions may differ from this dramatic misrepresentation.

There are all sorts of tactical arguments to be made as well, but they take time and effort and, therefore, mone. Even if you know you are going to trial, you need a good motions practice.

For those who are interested in the most recent case on the right to cross examine forensic techs, check out melendez-diaz at supremecourtus.gov. It is in with the opinions from the last (08) term. The merits and amici briefs are on the ABA website.

Sorry about the typos. Working off the blackberry until the new laptop comes.

Needham, stop wasting your fortune on “hail-mary” passes and crap shoots: you can redeem yourself with your other progeny by doing so. There is still time to distance yourself (at least financially) from this mess.

I think the judge is risk averse, but I am getting the feeling more and more that the defense team us starting to phone it in as the prospect of collecting all of their fees dwindles. Some of their pleadinha are obvious rehashes. Sure, it’s a loss leader. But they still want minimize the economic losses. Geragos’ shitty job on Scott Peterson’s case didn’t didn’t hurt his ability to find work.

Craig,

I’ll try to read the motions soon, but my gut tells me that they are hail mary passes that likely rely on precedent that was all decided 20 years ago, i.e., recycled boilerplate.

Just my 2 cents.

The G was adamant that they turned over more documentation that they needed to and as David said, Judge Weisberg was satisfied with what they produced.

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I know you have a lot on your plate right now, but your take on the motion to dismiss the conspiracy and obstruction counts is most welcome. XO

Knowing that Judge Weisberg is cautious and would not want this case to be overturned on appeal on a decision he made, why then would he rule against turning over the bench notes? He was rather adamant the the prosecution does not need to turn over the bench notes in this situation.

David, co-ed.

More on that soon and other motions that have just hit.