I'm no attorney, but it sure seems like the defense's closing arguing was an epic fail. Isn't the goal of an attorney to ask questions they already know the answers to?
If so, why bring in one of his patients to testify and have them say that their appointment on the morning in question was re-scheduled due to Isaak's dentist appointment?
And then have the state do their rebuttal with the dental office stating that there was no dental appointment.
If so, why bring in one of his patients to testify and have them say that their appointment on the morning in question was re-scheduled due to Isaak's dentist appointment?
And then have the state do their rebuttal with the dental office stating that there was no dental appointment.