Quote:
Originally Posted by automaton 3
I wouldn't read anything into this.
The defence will set out in their closing all of the missing pieces of evidence and all the problems with the evidence presented.
Is there enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational inference is guilt? That will be up to the jury.
|
How effective will that be though, I mean by not calling any defense witnesses to impeach what the prosecution laid out is the jury going to pay a lot of attention to that in closing arguments?
Does this open the way for Garland to appeal based around ineffective defense council?
I'm guessing that the only thing that he can do is remind the jury what the definition of reasonable doubt is, and maybe say that the crown failed to reach that level with the evidence and testimony presented.