🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

The defense need not prove they are dog bites, but merely convince the jury it is reasonable to conclude they are. In that context, what is Brennan accomplishing here, because it is not disproving that possibility. Moreover, his line of attack will be even more effective against

Is Brennan going to confront Dr. Russell with something useful, such as challenging her with credible facts that the arm injuries could be consistent with a taillight/arm collision or is he going to ignore all of that?

This is going so well that we've reached the point of the cross where Dr. Russell likely has convinced the jury that it is more likely the wounds were caused by a pitchfork rather than a taillight

Brennan is doing a very good job of bolstering Dr. Russell. The problem is she is a defense witness with an opinion, that if credited, substantially damages his case.

When crossing a medical expert with pointless background facts, and where you allege injuries had to be from a taillight, it is probably best not question her in a manner that walks into testimony in which she says the injuries could not have come from a taillight followed by an

Acute grief reaction. Yikes. She even offered Brennan an out, asking if he wanted the explanation. He said yes. And she gave it. Just brutal cross examination.

Brennan's too-cute strategy of deliberately concealing anything "bad" in his case in chief (Proctor, the Alberts, Higgins, and yes, anything related to Chloe the dog) has become a serious issue. There is no evidence of a dog DNA test (let alone the results or how and where it was

Folks, this issue was never going to lead to a mistrial, however improper Brennan's question may have been. She should have precluded further inquiry on this because the defense cannot challenge the evidence/credibility/reliability surrounding the DNA testing and they shouldn't

we are watching discussion about DNA testing and whether a doctor can criticize its integrity and impact on her expert opinion with NONE of the DNA in evidence before the jury. Once again, this trial is 1 of 1...

Officer Barros just nuked the DA's case and just made the MSP frame entirely possible. This is DEVASTATING to the DA.

if he holds this testimony on cross, this case is over. There is no recovery from this for the DA.

the defense decision not to call Michael Proctor now makes sense. And Brennan's decision not to call him looks devastating.

the only way to save this case, which is on life support and fading fast is for Brennan to have an all-time cross that exposes Barros as completely unreliable and unworthy of belief. His cross is good but it is far from exposing Barros as incredible. And Barros' demeanor is

Brennan did a nice cross of Barros under the circumstances. But not nearly enough to salvage the catastrophic damage Barros did to the DA's case. Reasonable doubt already has been established and the defense hasn't even called the ARCCA witnesses yet who will substantially

"Useless to the defense?" Hardly. Useless analysis? Unquestionably.

not included: the author's claims (1) that the ARCCA witnesses will not testify and the firm will go out of business, (2) the police officer who confirmed-as a defense witness-that the taillight was mostly intact before the MSP touched it was a "useless" witness, (3) that there

It really is this simple. This is the “black or white” issue in this case.

Discussed this last night with Ian Runkle/Runkle of the Bailey @ YouTube and The Young Jurks Jessica Machado if you are concerned with prosecutorial misconduct and due process the question you should be asking is: why did Lally call Barros a year ago, have him describe the taillight and NOT drive it home by