[Sandylapper]

I'm not inclined to try to make arguments that either scenario I presented as hypotheticals actually happened. I was only trying to answer the questions you posed. Such scenarios are, in my mind's eye, possible--not probable but possible, if defense wants to throw it out there for jury consideration.

[Canadian Outrage]

Think of it this way?: The Prosecutions PURPOSE is to find and present the TRUTH. The Defense's purpose is to PREVENT a Jury from hearing the truth!! Now, I find that rather EASY to choose between.

[Devil_Anse]

If there is a slight foundation of fact that supports the introduction of evidence about this Carroll, or about other paid thugs, then maybe the defense can get it in. Otherwise, they will not be able to bring it up. They can't just throw any old thing into their questioning. There has to be a foundation laid--not only for the asking of questions on that subject, but also for the introduction of ANY evidence purporting to relate to Carroll, etc.