The outcome itself shows it was an unreasonable risk.
We're in a position where one of these two statements is a lie. He's admitted he's lied about the most important part of his testimony so how can the judge allow this person to testify? But that's what judges do, they make decisions.
I would be shocked if we had a verdict before the first of April.
But that's not going to happen. I'm confident that's not going to happen.
I can't say it entered into any of my decision making.
If we take it according to the way the evidence was presented, that was about the twelfth of 78 witnesses, so obviously there is a long deliberation process going ... The jury is taking their job as seriously as the police and lawyers did.
If that's the only evidence you've got, it's a sad day in the justice system to prosecute people for murder on the basis of that.
He is calm. He knows he's going to testify and he's going to explain what happened, and he's ready to do it.
He's going to be the first defense witness.
I think we can say this is an absolutely wonderful thing that the jury takes their job and responsibility as seriously as the lawyers and police did in this case.
I think it was because it was six o'clock at night ... I will be asking the judge to reconsider it considering the lateness of the night and we'll see.
You have to do what's in your client's best interest and no one else's.
This is another effort by the prosecution to keep out evidence the jury ought to hear.
This case is an accident. It is not an intentional act.
This is an attempt to get discovery they are not entitled to - it's also six months too late.
A lot of people have said in this case 'I can't believe that he didn't go in and try to save those kids, it's just 4 feet of water.' Well, he did and he knew it was hopeless.
It's an adjustment in the market. Closing activity lags sales activity.
If you've ever been to a funeral where there's a parent who has lost a child and they're dealing with lots of people, oftentimes they will smile as a way of getting through it. It is absolutely no indication of what is really going on in a person's mind.
In order to prove whether it was voluntary or involuntary, you must have access to Ms. Hamm or a psychologist who can talk to Ms. Hamm. When we filed the motion, we believed that would be forthcoming and we would have that access.
How could you make that up? You can't.
He's not some cold-hearted killer who went to the hospital out of a show. He was extremely upset and distraught to the point of severe depression that evening.
I believe Amanda would have testified exactly like she told the police seven times -- this was an accident and how it happened. So I wasn't concerned about that.
You've got to come and listen to the show.
The lay person doesn't have that training so their response to a life-threatening situation isn't always the same or as heroic as you would like it to be.