[ZX12R]

Now that the defense has rested, I've been trying to make sense of Baez's outrageous opening statement, and then the complete failure to prove ANY of it. The only way it makes sense to me is that Casey told Baez all the stuff about sexual abuse at the hands of George and Lee and he bought it all as the absolute truth. Then, believing all of that was fact, he (with Casey's approval) decided to gamble that George, Lee, and the prosecution would be so afraid of that awful information coming out, along with George's affair, that the prosecution would be forced to take a plea. But it didn't work.

That is the only way it makes any sense to me. That, or Baez is the worst attorney ever.

[truthkeeper]

That is the only way it makes any sense to me. That, or Baez is the worst attorney ever.

I think the latter.

Baez just wanted to ring some bells. As we know, they cannot be unrung. It only takes ONE juror to hang up the jury, remember.

[MizSterious]

"Now that the defense has rested, I've been trying to make sense of Baez's outrageous opening statement, and then the complete failure to prove ANY of it."

Awhile ago on HLN, one of the commentators said this exact thing was going to be a problem. According to this HLN lawyer, you can only use what you've proven with evidence in a closing statement, so much of what he said in opening might have to be left out. Any legal experts here know if that is true?