View Single Post
Old July 10, 2013, 08:35 PM   #237
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,066
Quote:
The critical point being that the phone was not in Martin's name and this weakened any inference he wrote the messages.
I think this is a specious argument. 17 year olds are minors and not permitted to enter into contracts. Likely his phone was acquired under one or both parents' names. How does that make it any more likely someone else used his phone which, according to the reports I've read, was password protected? Not to mention, unless the defense attorney is outright lying, the transcripts were provided very late in the game to the defense, who had little opportunity to interview those individuals Martin exchanged texts with in order to authenticate the origin of the texts. In short, it seems quite possible that the judge allowed the prosecution to run out the clock on this evidence which, if true, would certainly be reversible error.
csmsss is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05546 seconds with 8 queries