We are in the rabbit hole, presented with a paradox.
But it seems logical that if A witnessed B performing some act, that the lawyers for B cannot argue both that A should not be allowed to testify and that there are no witnesses to B's act.
At least with OJ, he tried on the glove. If justice is going to miscarry, let's make sure we at least have a doctor in attendance. A real constitutional crisis is brewing here.
But it seems logical that if A witnessed B performing some act, that the lawyers for B cannot argue both that A should not be allowed to testify and that there are no witnesses to B's act.
At least with OJ, he tried on the glove. If justice is going to miscarry, let's make sure we at least have a doctor in attendance. A real constitutional crisis is brewing here.