00:00:00
Now, to be clear, I just read through this reading, too. The ruling for the new trial is solely based on Becky
00:00:05
Hill's improper influence on the jury. Has nothing to do with the evidence presented in this case, correct? Well,
00:00:12
it it doesn't it doesn't. That the Supreme Court went on to say, you know, because we're going to reverse
00:00:18
it based on Becky Hill's conduct, we don't need to find additional grounds, but cautioned in a footnote and in a very
00:00:26
long explanation about different evidentiary issues we raised and said, you know, to the to the next judge,
00:00:34
you're not bound by any previous ruling. And on the financial crimes, clearly found the state went too far and the
00:00:41
judge allowed testimony that they would not want done in a second trial. But again,
00:00:47
um it's not binding on any trial judge, but if I were reading that opinion as the
00:00:51
next trial judge, I'd be very cautious about the financial crimes testimony and very cautious about the guns and the
00:00:59
tool marks and all the other things that we raised issues about. [clears throat]
00:01:02
Um the cell phone expert that the state came up with over a weekend. There many many many many evidentiary issues. All
00:01:09
those issues we dealt with in the second trial. And by the way, Alec was always going to plead guilty to the financial
00:01:14
crimes. The financial crimes though, you know, that's one part of this. This case heavily based on
00:01:21
circumstantial evidence, but part of the huge issue here is your client admitted
00:01:26
to lying, admitted to lying about where he was that night, admitted to lying to police. So, that doesn't change anything
00:01:32
in this new trial despite what happened with the court clerk, correct? I mean, how do you deal with that?
00:01:37
>> no, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, what the court said is you can't go if you're going to put in evidence of
00:01:42
financial crimes, it's got to be much more limited. There's no forensic evidence tying him to the murders. No
00:01:49
fingerprints, no DNA, um no confession, no video, uh no uh matter of fact, the forensic
00:01:57
evidence would indicate he didn't do it. So, the it's up to the state to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.