I'm joining late, so someone may have already covered this:
How can a defense team have a coherent defense against "charges to be named later"?
What's to stop any prosecutor from filing one charge, but knowing during the entire trial that he's really going for another charge.
As an example. I want to find you guilty of speeding. My strategy is to charge you with vehicular manslaughter. You defense team looks at the elements of the charge and has a strategy to defend against that particular charge .
When the prosecution says that you were speeding AND driving with a dozen spears in the front grill of your car your defense team is focusing on the charge… vehicular manslaughter. They say,
“Five white ladies and one Hispanic lady of the jury, my client wasn’t driving with 12 spears in the grill of his car. Doing so would be unsafe and ridiculous. He didn’t have spears in the front of his car, he doesn’t own any spears, and he is NOT GUILY!"
In the end, the persecution y fail to prove vehicular manslaughter. It never was their intention to prove it. But, there were successful in diverting your attention from their real goal…speeding. The defense was fighting the wrong fight.
That’s allowing a horrible diversion and it just doesn’t seem morally right.
I know this is an imperfect, un-lawyerly example….
BDLR is a complete asshole whose approach, in my opinion, will NOT play well with 6 women who are mothers and professionals. I don’t know of a single one who enjoys being YELLED at by anyone, especially a state attorney. O’Mara comes across must more “in control” and respectful.
Short answer: The “judge,” biased as she is, did not allow the Murder 3 w/ Child Abuse charge to be included.