The only thing that worries me is that the prosecution and defense agreed before the trial that no testimony alleging Brian David Mitchell sexually abused children would be allowed. Then the prosecution shows the video of the questioning of Mitchell and the interviewer brings this up? And the prosecuting lawyer says he didn't realize that was in the video? Is that just sloppy work, grounds for appeal, or have I watched too much Law & Order?
Actually it sounds like a back door trick.
I doubt it, I would be very surprised if a Deputy US Attorney from any trial division would so obviously stoop so low, but your question deserves an answer from the US Attorneys office.
Both the Trib and the Desperate snooze are just government information outlets. Never asking tough questions in return for spoon fed stories.
Too busy, not enough staff, the dog ate my loafer tassles. Nonsense.
You will rarely, make that never, see sloppy work or lack of preparation at this level.
Literally, it is
The United States of America v. Little Old You and some lawyer your mom could partially pay.
They should never lose a case they have decided to try. Never. If they lose this one, there will be some sad drunk lawyers in the Oyster Bar.