Community Chat

[Jazzybelle]

This has probably been discussed somewhere amidst the many threads about this trial, but I couldn't find it.

In Baez's opening statements, he interjected the premise that Caylee had been molested by both George and Lee along with the "fact" that Caylee's death was due to accidental drowning and that George knew and helped with the cover-up.

Attorneys on both sides of the verdict have stated that to make these statements as a theory to introduce reasonable doubt without any basis (Casey telling him they happened) is unethical.

So... here's my question...

Neither the opening or closing statements can be considered as evidence, and the jury is thus instructed. If the defense wasn't going to present any evidence to prove these hypotheses, then why even include them?

Also, since they can't be used as evidence, why did the prosecution bother to defend the allegations by asking George questions about them?

One juror (I think an alternate) said that even though he knew he couldn't consider it, it was always in the back of his mind. Do you think this affected the outcome of the trial?

Do you think these are ethical legal tactics?