gringococolo wrote:The defense is screwed. They have failed in almost all accounts they they claimed they would bring out in opening statements.
The defense had no obligation whatsoever to make an opening statemente of any sort at all. In addition, the defense could have also waited to make its opening statement until
after the close of the prosecution's case. By stating what their defeense is in their opening statement- at the beginning of the trial- they "tipped their hand" (when they should not have).
Now, she almost
has to testify. If she doesn't, there will be zero evidence of a drowning . Then they cannot use that defense at closing- and will almost have to explain during closing argument why it promissed something that it never even attempted to deliver. 100% bone-headed move.
The fact that the case is "circumstantial", rather than "direct", should not matter what the penalty will be upon a finding of guilt.
I have a feeling she will be aquited of murder.