“The defense just needs to lay a seed of doubt, they don’t have to prove anything. The prosecution has the duty to prove its case. It appears the prosecution has pretty solid evidence (including testimony of the other perp).”
I dont expect they will have any trouble proving who shot the child, the issue is whether the mother had anything to do with it. For that they would need to show contact between mom and shooter, an offer of money, payment, etc. If they just have the word of the 2 ferals against the mother, they have nothing.
That was my point... the defense doesn’t need anything, they can just throw out any scurrilous accusation they want. Prosecutors can jump up and down to no avail. I’m not sure but I suppose the public defenders are hoping to get life instead of Ole Sparky. There’s too much evidence to convict the perp, so they have to be after amelioration at this point.