Wow, both you give continually provide the argument "Because I say so", as if that's proof of anything and is supposed to carry some weight. And you both contunually say Baez is not restricted from directly accusing people people not on trial of horrible crimes without the burden of haviing to try and substantiate it during the trial, and EVEN IN THE FACE OF THE SUPREME COURT TELLING OU THIS IS NOT ALLOWED you pass it off by saying that's not really what the Supreme Court is saying. and finally, Casmith, you back away from your claims that the defense has no restrictions in what he can claim or accuse in opening statements by now saying, well, PRESUMABLY there were two people that could have testified to what Baez claimed ........ owhich has not been your point previously = you are backpeddling just like peplaw did after I provided all the other info from legal publications. Of course one of those that "presumably" could have testified (Casey;s dad) had never in any way indicated those things ever happened and could not be "presumed" to suddenly, out of the blue admit to things no one had ever even suggested before, and the other was Mr, Baez's client who he did not put on the stand and I believe he never had any intention to put on the stand The fact is, in opning statements it is always "presumed" that the attorney plans to present the defense he offers in the openning, and that he plans to present evidence/testimony to support direct claims of fact - it's when the attorney doesn't actuall follow through on that presumption that you find he has acted improperly. All that said, just like I mentioned to Peplaw the other day, I never had a problem with disagreeing with me based on a belief that Baez may have INTENDED to put Casey on the stand but changed his mind - I think that is almost certainly not the case, because even Baez had admitted Casey was a habitual liar, and he would have known the prosecution would have destroyed Casey;s credibility on the stand. But that hasn't been your argument all along. Your argument has been that there is nothing that prohibits the defense from making claims of fact and direcly accusing people not on trial of horrible crimes without the intention or oboigation to try and prove the claim/accusatin during the trial. The Supremem Court tells you this is wrong.