This question has been bouncing around in my head for awhile now. Absent a smoking gun email, doesn't the Government's entire case rest on the word of Ed Peters? After all, neither Scruggs, nor Joey Langston, nor Balducci, nor Patterson can testify to having a conversation with DeLaughter.
I can't help but think I'd be a bit nervous if my case depended on 12 jurors passing positive judgment on the truth and veracity of Ed Peters.
Rivers, not Reservoirs
7 hours ago
Posts
2 comments:
I thought there was an email (but maybe that's just in the Eaton case). In which case, the other acts evidence becomes crucial. To get DeLaughter on the lying to a federal agent, doesn't the prosecution just have to prove that DeLaughter and Peters discussed the Wilson case?
They have to prove that, and they have to prove what he said. Therein lies the rub. If the conversation wasn't tape recorded (and they usually aren't, from my understanding and experience), well....
Post a Comment