The Defense - Opening Statement

In 2006 McClish and Asha worked together in the friendly, supportive environment that is Ben Lomond Market, a family owned business. **Should have been stricken from the record because it was clearly a hostile work environment where McClish, a manager, would later be convicted of some sexual assault charges levied by ANOTHER employee.
McClish was married, with 3 children.
His only crime up to this point was a drunk driving charge. **Only crime he had been convicted of at this point, not the only crime he committed and was later convicted of (READ: Rape, sodomy, etc).
Asha was pregnant in September.
September 10th Asha did not show up to work, McClish was 'concerned'
Days passed, still without contact, McClish grew more worried.
Police became involved.
Rumors passed that the husband, Richard, was not the father of Asha's baby.
Supposition and guess work turned to fact during the Police Investigation **Thats funny because evidence steers an investigation, not heresay, rumor or guess work. The same evidence that lead to a conviction of McClish as a rapist.
The investigation steered poeple to color McClish as responsible.
His conversations turned to his guilt, evidence against his guilt were suppressed. **Any evidence of this?
Police pushed witnesses.
There are two types of evidence: Trace evidence, and DNA evidence (which is "A byproduct of living").
**I do not have notes for his exact words, but he was pushing the Jury that cross contamination of evidence is easy, heavily present, common, etc. That DNA evidence should only be used as a guide, as it is fallible,
take it as a grain of salt.
**I should note that there were more people (investigators? Lawyers? etc) wearing suits that sat in for the Defense's Opening statement than I had seen at any previous portion of the trial. If I had to guess I would say most of them were lawyers.
**The Defense closed by reiterating that he may pass on questioning every witness, pass on presenting anything to the court, the Defendant could pass on testifying, and they would still have to vote Not Guilty if they felt that the Prosecution didn't present a case that left out all reasonable doubt.
**Also reiterated was that McClish can refuse to take the stand and testify on his behalf, and the Jury may not hold that as any indication of guilt. The 5th Amendment, which McClish would (Read: will) be exercising if (Read: when) he refuses to testify gives American Citizens the right to not "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," or to say it more simply: You have the right to not incriminate yourself. However, by pleading the 5th, are you not saying that you are refusing your right to testify on your behalf because you would incriminate yourself? So in essence are you not indicating you are guilty of a crime?

This section is much shorter not because I took less notes, but the Defense took much less time with their opening statement. And what he did say came off as sleezy, again only in my opinion: Who says, "I can sit here and do nothing, the defendant can sit here and do nothing, and if that guy doesnt prove it enough to you, the defendant gets to walk." WHO DOES THAT?! Even if that is how our system works, outwardly stating it as smugly as he seemed to, and providing almost nothing else in his defense seems lackluster. He could have said, "McClish is a family man, a standup citizen that I will show was targeted by the Police to be hung out to dry. The real killer is still out there, McClish is innocent." Nope, none of that, just "well I dont have to do a damn thing, and I can still win." Also the out-right-lie about Ben Lomond Market being a "friendly, supportive work atmosphere" we now know to be blatantly false, with McClish as the central reason for that statement being a lie. But the Jury can't be told this, even though I could prove it?

Jury members, do you believe a work environment where over the course of years several women accuse their manager of sexual assault can be labeled a "friendly and supportive work environment?"
Do you believe a work environment where a manager is later convicted of rape, sodomy and threats of violence all against of one of his employees could be labeled a "friendly and supportive work environment?"
Oh you dont? Yeah me either, so clearly BLM was not a "friendly and supportive work environment."