Quote:While I don't consider your analogy to a court case appropriate, as long as you brought it up, allow me to point out something. It is exceedingly common for a defense attorney to suggest alternative explanations for the facts in order to establish "reasonable doubt" as to the prosecution's story of how events came to pass.
Absolutely but note the word 'facts'. As long as a fact is in evidence either side can use the fact or physical evidence to make their case. What they can't do is make up some alternate theory based on the mere possibility such could occur minus any facts or evidence it did occur.
Quote:It is the prosecution's obligation (yours) to demonstrate that these alternatives are contradicted by the facts of the case. Any prosecutor who attempted to dismiss the introduction of alternative explanations by claiming that "the defense doesn't actually believe that is how things happened," asserting that it's "just a cheap legal trick," and not providing reasons for believing that that is not how things happened, such an attorney would soon find himself out of a job. Your objections make neither logical nor legal sense.
No but any lawyer worth his salt would object to his adversary attempting to introduce an alternate theory weaved out of thin air or even on the basis that some alternate theory is feasible. They still have to ground it in evidence or facts produced in the hearing. Even in closing arguments they'll get an objection if they start making arguments apart from facts or evidence brought out in the case. That is why jurors are referred to as the triers of fact.
