Without supporting the concept, the central point is that the court, not experts, must make the decisions. Hellmann should just reviewed the first trial evidence and made his own decision.
I repeat that the question is with this court will they be able to ignore what they know already? Will they look at the first trial testimony and come to Hellmann's conclusion by just using the evidence in that trial (with a wink to C&V)?
Unless we completely misunderstand the system, a trial de novo must allow for more than just a review. Will the defense be able to bring evidence about Curatolo and heroin use for example?
I'm still on the legality of the DNA report.
Is the issue that the judge ordered this report vs it being submitted as evidence by either the prosecution or defense?
I'm still pissed that Stefoni can withhold info without recourse
I'm about irked enough to jump on a plane and move to Italy for a year, so I can learn how their legal system actually works (& pick up a little italian while I'm there)


