In a circumstantial case, nothing is more critical for the state than the creation of

a timeline, because there is no direct evidence to show exactly when the commission of the

crime occurred.

So as they collect evidence starting with potential witness statements and the medical examiners

report, they then begin building a timeline, much like when one starts a jigsaw puzzle.

They start with the borders of the puzzle and then work their way in words, piece by piece,

and an attempt to form a clear picture.

The challenge is, when they have a piece of the puzzle, it simply does not fit.

The question for them then becomes, what do we do with this piece of the puzzle?

Well, certainly they don't include it within the framework of their narrative, but they

are also acutely aware that the defense will use this bad evidence to try and sway the

jury into believing that the state's timeline simply does not fit the facts of the case.

I want you to remember this one unequivocal truth.

None of the lawyers involved in a criminal trial.

We know what occurred during the commission of a crime, because they weren't there, plain

and simple.

So no matter how confident either of the prosecutor or the defense attorney sounds about what

they believe happened on whatever day the crime took place during their opening statements

or their closing arguments when they are using declarative statements like, this is what

happened.

You always have to keep in mind, that as a juror or an observer, that they know what

actually happened about as much as you and I do, which is not at all, because they are

...