DA charged
04:21.99,04:23.76, A If you're convicted,
04:23.76,04:27.01, A is to hold and intend to sell over 200 grams and intent to distribute is automatic.
Police testimony
15:13.17,0:15:18.60, by the way, is there any physical evidence\N or other circumstantial evidence that ds is lying
15:18.60, 0:15:19.63, no
DA Closing Statement
29:59.47,301.57, A was caught with the drugs right in her hand,
301.66,304.26, A straight value of a hundred thousand dollars,
304.27, 306.00, A was cutting off the opened baggie with caught stuffing
306.00, 307.57, A bag of cocain into a pillow case of cocain into a pillow case,
307.78, 310.04, A if we can't even convict here...
317.16, 319.96, Mr. ADonnell said that the prosecution only has this piece of evidence, Mr. Donnell says that's all they have,
320.03,322.57, A my poor client was arrested my poor client was arrested
322.57,324.30, A is just because
324.30, 326.73, A she had the drugs in her hand,
326.74,327.57, A how awful.
Based on this: Donnell looked wonderful when he cross-examined the police. It was entirely based on the prosecution's combination of punches that the prosecution casually pressed on the ground and punched it without evidence.
In the same environment, if the police trust his son, he does not believe that the drugs belong to his son.
If the police do not trust his son and must judge on the basis of facts, then in this case, there is no other evidence, it is impossible to prove that the drug is a girl, at most it proves that the girl is harboring drugs, but DA is not charged on this charge
At this point, the police testimony has not been trusted by the jury, and there is no other evidence, and the outcome has been determined.
In addition, Donnell’s statement in the closing statement is sophistry and can only be used in the absence of evidence:
34:30.16,34:32.58, lawyer A is in the process of defending but lawyers have to...
34:32.58,34:34.76, A must follow certain rules have to play by certain rules when they try a case.
34:34.79,34:36.66,A If you violate these rules, you violate one of these rules
34:36.66,34:37.69, A Boom invalid trial and boom, mistrial.
34:37.73,34:39.63, A lawyer could even be thrown into jail.
34:42.27,34:44.90, One such rule says
34:44.90,34:47.65, a lawyer can't knowingly put up false evidence.
34:47.73,34:50.83, He can't something to the jury he knows to be untrue,
34:50.83,34:51.73,A This means whether you believe it or not, which means, believe it or not,
34:51.82,34:54.32,A If I know that my client is guilty, I can't stand here before you,
34:54.41,34:56.91,A I can't stand in front of you and say that my client is innocent of the crime charge
34:56.97,34:58.67, A declares that she is innocent if I know otherwise.
34:58.67,35:00.27,A I can say other things. Oh I can say other things.
35:00.27,35:02.80, A I can say that the prosecution did not fulfill the burden of proof. I can say the State didn't meet it's burden.
35:02.88,35:04.42, A didn't prove guilt. It didn't prove guilt.
35:04.42,35:07.00, It didn't satisfy the standard of beyond all reasonable doubt.
35:07.00,35:08.48,A These are what I can say I can say those things.
35:08.52,35:10.37,A But if I know But I can't stand here before your both faces
35:10.37,35:13.91, A she carried out an act and say she didn't commit the act
35:13.91,35:16.22, A I can't stand in front of you and say she doesn't if I know that statement to be false.
35:16.22,35:17.63,A This is the rule That's the rules.
Whether the defendant is guilty or not is not based on the lawyer's opinion, so the above passage has no proof. Are the jury really fools? Would it confuse them if they could make new tricks every time?
In summary, in this case, DA pulled people back, thinking that they would encounter a soft persimmon, but was easily resolved by donnell.
View more about The Practice reviews
