[longjack]

The motion deals with the defense's tactic of the intoxication alibi and 3rd party culpability.

So Dusek, who wrote the motion, knew what the defense (Feldman) wanted to do. That's what I meant about Dusek knows where Feldman is going.

My thought is that if DAW admits he was drunk in the motion, and Dusek can get Susan to say she feared for her or other's safety when DAW was drunk, the prosecution scores points now, and can pave a path to use Susan as a witness if an appeal happens.

'Forceful' doesn't have the same impact as 'fear for your safety', in my opinion. It seems logical, also, that a question after 'was he forceful?' would be, 'Did you fear for your safety?'. It seems that any defense objection would be overruled since intoxication was admitted to and DAW's behavior while intoxicated would be pertinent.

longjack

[John Jamieson]

Dusek might have misrepresented what Feldman said. Remember the search warrant misrepresentations? How about the 30 or 40 people called by the prosecution that said the cops misrepresented their statements?