Ernest Schaal wrote:
> etaka wrote:
> > Ernest Schaal wrote:
> >
> > > The mother's sordid past would be admissible only to the degree that it went
> > > to the veracity of the witness. Aspects of her sordid past that do not
> > > relate to her veracity would be inadmissible in cross-examination.
> >
> > You mean they wouldn't be able to dig into her past behavior to the
> > same degree to establish how she could be manipulating her son to get
> > more out of Jackson?
>
> As a general rule, digging into past behavior of a witness is only okay
> if it goes to the question of credibility of the testimony of the
> witness. The manipulation of her son could be admissible if it
> conflicted with her testimony or otherwise casted doubts as to her
> credibility.
>
> >From what little I have seen, the jurors found MJ not guilty because
> they didn't find the prosecution witnesses credible sufficently to
> believe MJ guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What I said. So their decision to use the mother was a mistake?