Replies

I don't see how he can possibly get a new trial. Ideas?

I don't see how he can possibly get a new trial. Ideas?

Oh, no! Lots of reaons. Corrupt cops. Swinging neighbors. Media lynch mobs. I'm just not sure Feldman is the man for the job however. I think DW may need new counsel. Dont' give up hope. Loose lips will tell the tale.

It might be a stretch, but I was thinking admissability of evidence issues mostly related to exclusion of evidence the defense wanted in; the refusal of the defendant's request to examine the VD house; the total lack of evidence to support a kidnapping conviction; the judge's comment on the evidence during Feldman's closing argument; the prejudicial appeal to the emotions during Dusek's closing argument; the judge's decision to prevent the defense from arguing a third party; especially when there was no evidence DW was ever in the VD home; Mudd's limitation on the scope of cross examination by Feldman; the whole laundry receipt business and the fact that DW told the SDPD that he took stuff to the cleaners and even gave them a receipt with the address on it; the instructions to the jury that seemed to state (and I may be off on this) that if the jury found that DW murdered Danielle, they must also find that he kidnapped her and that if they found that he kidnapped her, they must also find that he murdered her.

I think his best chance is that the porn charges were prejudicial to the defense on the kidnapping and murder charges.

As disgusting as porn is, it is no more evidence that DW committed these crimes than the swinging lifestyle of the VD is proof that they or one of their 'friends' did it. If anything.

Although not likely, an appeals court could simply issue an opinion that states the evidence simply does not support the convictions. For those who have opined that in the real world things are not always without some contradictions, I would say, there is sometimes evidence (bugs, lack of DW DNA in VD home, failure of dogs to 'hit' on motor home) that simply cannot be reconciled with other evidence; so much so that reasonable doubt cannot be avoided. This type of evidence needs to be explained away and not just 'disregarded' as some think; apparently by even the jury in this case.

I don't see how he can possibly get a new trial. Ideas?

You are the attorney. You are the one who is supposed to tell us your ideas. Got any of your own?

(You are the only known attorney I have found on this topic, over the duration, who thinks the man is innocent). Maybe you should take on a pro bono effort, to supply the defense with the bases, for appeal.

Hint: Go look in the Smokey Backroom--it's all there, intertwined with all of the usual ranting, namecalling, insults, ridicule, slander. Good hunting, counselor.