want. they have the freedom of speech to say, it s not that we got in trouble for what we did, it is that donald trump is being unfairly attacked, witch hunt, they have the freedom of speech to say that. what the judge is saying in court is, so far, that is a worthless, baseless, zero-type legal claim. which means it won t help them avoid trial, it won t be the kind of thing they ll likely be able to present to the jury, unless they find evidence of it. the judge rejecting the defense claim that the free speech rights are being challenged in court. he has all the free speech to talk out of court. the idea that free speech is a license to a coup or a conspiracy, that s never been true. it s not legally true. we ve heard versions of that from trump s lawyers on air. what the position of the prosecutor is nonsensitive, ordinary evidence should not be disclosed to the press. that s shocking. not only do they want to violate president trump s first amendment rights, they want to violate f
donald trump s favor, the justice department can appeal those decisions pretrial, but it s going to result in lengthy delays, which is something the justice department doesn t want and absolutely will be donald trump s bottom line game plan. neil, can we talk about something that barba just mentioned, the prosecutorial defense claim, right before this indictment was released, the trump defensively was talking a lot about comments made by investigator jay brought to the lawyer for walt nauta, robert goodman. can you talk about what you ve heard in terms of that claim, and whether it s something for the doj to be worried about? whether it s something that judge cannon can viably give credence to? yeah. every bad criminal defendant tries to make that kind of arguments about prosecutorial misconduct. it s going nowhere, it s going nowhere fast. in order to show prosecutorial misconduct like this, you d have to show some sort of actual malice on the part of the prosecutor, which just
the defense claim michael oakes knew linda had been stopped by her ex husband that went to a state of mind when he acted in self-defense. so now, linda told the jury some story she had earlier told oaks. her claim, for example, that mark appeared in her bedroom one night. he had a pistol in his hand and laid it next to the head and was very disturbed. another time, she said, what you looked at her bathroom window. and mark was on the hillside behind my house. he was looking through the scope pointing the rifle at me. and long after she left them, after mark agreed to plead guilty to the stalking charge, she visited their amanda paradise, pecan island. and she said she was found in the cubbyhole in the master bedroom. a wedding candle that she had thrown away during the divorce. i found the wedding candle
edward as a liar, a scheme or, worst about, a cold blooded killer. but as his lawyer was about to assert, those were just words. where was the hard evidence of edwards killed in the murder of paul? what i had to issue the most is that, including it could not have done it. attorney walter began his where the defense claim that the detective was so meticulously went over every piece of evidence collected there, failed to come up with anything. not so much as a fingerprint or fiber to connect ed to the crime. you re going to see a lot of what i call, well, that is interesting, what about that? but now one of those makes up beyond a reasonable doubt. what did you think, he, has been an eye witness would have remembered a strange, 300 pound man lumbering away in broad daylight? but the attorney did point out something a young neighbor had
scientific argument, sometimes pathologists simply cannot see why it person dies. the doctor who specializes in emergency medicine testified and unexplained deaths occur far more often that many of us would guess. nationwide, there are approximately 300,000 episodes of sudden death per year. and of those episodes of sudden death, one to 2% occur in young people. but one third of those in young people that die have normal autopsies. in other words, people sometimes just die. their autopsies may never reveal the cause. but the issue that might decide the case was the observation by the arriving officers and emts of dam here, and dry body. what looks suspicious was easily explainable said the defense. here simply stays wet longer. if they get out of the swimming food or bathtub, your skin dries before. yes. the defense told a court you have to look at the elapsed time of the incident. the defense claim that sarah s body dried off in the time between ryan for speaking to the 9-1-