BOR THE BILLIONTH TIME, no, opening statments are not evidence. Where in the world did you get that I was saying they were? I never said that, and in fact, said exctly the opposite - that they weren't evidence, which is exactly why it was improper to make direct claims and accusations without planning to provide evidence later in the trial to back it up.
FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME, the fact that opening statement are not evidence does not give the attorneys free reign to say, claim or accuse anything that they want without planning to back it up with evidence later in the trial. That is not even a debateable point in our court system.
What I said was that what Baez claimed/accused was the equivalent of testimony (not evidence). What attorneys are allowed to do in opening statements is lay the foundation for what they plan try and prove through evidence/testimony in the body of the trial. They are not allowed to argue points, much less make direct claiims and accusatioins, they do not plan to try and substantiate during the trial. Again, that's not even a debateable point in our court system. Making such claims/accusations completely in the place of whoever should have properly testified to such claims/accusations later in the trial is, in effect, offering that person's testimony without actually having them testify.
) Maybe that law will pass to make it a crime not to report your child missing. Or maybe it will just bring more awareness to child abuse and neglect.
