So if I understand you correctly... - Edit 1
Before modification by LadyLorraine at 22/09/2011 05:23:20 PM
What would have had to happen was:
1) Prove witnesses had been coerced/given inappropriate testimony
2) Use this evidence to declare mistrial
3) Go through an entirely "new trial" with a new jury (that are somehow ignorant/objective of what has been going on)
4) Be proved innocent in THAT trial.
And the clincher becomes step one. Is that correct?
1) Prove witnesses had been coerced/given inappropriate testimony
2) Use this evidence to declare mistrial
3) Go through an entirely "new trial" with a new jury (that are somehow ignorant/objective of what has been going on)
4) Be proved innocent in THAT trial.
And the clincher becomes step one. Is that correct?