[juzcuz]

I have a question for ya: PYX

Wasn't Brenda's testimony impeached this pass Monday?

She stated in PH to the court : "NO" to the question of
dancing with DW.
" " in Trial to the court: "NO I DIDN'T" when asked
if she danced with DW.

Then defense shows three witness: that testified to the court that --yes she certainly did dance with DW..

Didn't those three witnesses impeach/invalidate Brenda's entire credibility to the court--- To the point of perjury---- Isn't perjury a felony ?????---

[pyx]

Then defense shows three witness: that testified to the court that --yes she certainly did dance with DW.
Didn't those three witnesses impeach/invalidate Brenda's entire credibility to the court--- To the point of perjury---- Isn't perjury a felony ?

Brenda Van Dam's testimony for that portion of evidence given was impeached. Judge Mudd will have to instruct the jury on that (perhaps to disregard), at the appropriate time, I suspect. IIRC, perjury requires "intent" to be shown. I'm not sure that would be easy to show without mitigating cause. In short, I really can't see the SD DA persuing Brenda Van Dam for her lies. It may also open the door, should the defense fail to win an aquittal, for an appeal.

It would political suicide to go after a "mother who had *just* lost her child".