Michael Leonard

I think he said it best himself when he was talking about that the jury would have looked at her

quite differently.

He was so on point with that.

And this was

Such a close case to begin with.

It sounded like the jury struggled mightily.

And of course, if they knew any of these things, it would have had a huge impact on their deliberations, which, again, points to the fact that when you appeal a case or ask a court to revisit it based upon newly discovered evidence.

That's what they want to hear.

They want to hear, is it possible or is it probable or is it likely that if the jury had known about this evidence, it could have materially impacted their decision?

In this case, of course, that fact alone could have materially impacted the jury's decision.

It would have.

bombed her credibility, particularly on top of hypnosis.

She would have absolutely no credibility.

swayed him the other way if the hypnosis issue had been even disclosed to the court okay she probably doesn't even testify so think of the gargantuan effect that would have had oh huge but you know the second issue which is strange though when a reviewing court is considering you know whether

They could have changed the outcome.

They're not even, they wouldn't even allow juror testimony like that, but it's just a reasonable standard, right?

You know, what would reasonably expected to influence or affect the outcome of case.

And there's no doubt either of those facts would have the hypnosis and then the identification.

the absconding with the truck and wiping away the evidence.

I mean, it's like one of those cases you just don't know where to begin, and it's so sad.