Table of Contents
PARTIES AND COUNSEL:
The case under review arose shortly following the unexpected disappearance of David. Linnet who is the defendant in this case is currently facing a court trial for being alleged to have killed David and kept the incident secret while they were together. At the time of trial linnet is represented by James Martin who is an attorney and part of Public Defender. The State is represented by Kelly peter who is a Chief Counsel and an Assistant Attorney General at Capital Litigation Section of Attorney General's Office.
Opening argument and issues:
The prosecutors informed the court that, on the night of Feb 7, 2011, David, failed to reach at the Columbus, Ohio airport for a scheduled company trip flight to Kenya in Africa .The underlying failure was further investigated since David was to present his company's hotel investments in Africa. Later on 5th may 2011 it was reported that David's disappearance was connected to a sharp differing between David and linnet.
As a result, it led to the arrest of David's wife madam on allegation that she was responsible of the sudden disappearance of Mr. David since they had a sharp disagreement shortly before his disappearance concerning his trip to Africa. The prosecutors informed the court that linnet was against the trip since she argued that the adventure was wastage of time and brought no benefit at all. She also proposed to him that he abandon it. The court was informed that linnet resulted to violence leading to sudden death of Mr. David. For this reason she was arrested On April 1, 2011 to answer the charges of committing murder to her husband. However, on the material day of trial the body of the victim had not been discovered yet.
The defense argument was geared toward the codefendant who had pled guilty to the charges laid down against her, and the defendant argued that, despite the fact that the deceased was together with linnet shortly before his death there was no proof nor evidence that linnet had done the murder, neither did she have knowledge nor involvement with the murder of David as the arresting police had implied.
Limited time Offer
Moreover, the defense stated that the defendant never left her house as implied neither did she see off David from the house. As a result, the defense argued that the trial court was mislead since no evidence was produce to support the allegation laid against linnet by precluding evidence of third party culpability. In addition the defense argued that the evidence presented would find the defendants innocence.
Closing argument case argument
In closing arguments the defense argued that it was not possible for the defendants to have commit murder since she remained behind in her house after the husband left and headed to the airport. Further, the defense argued that it was clear of how the prosecution had conducted investigation towards defendant. The defense argued that the evidence produced toward linnet added no value in finding the true cause of David's murder.
The closing argument of the prosecution hinged for further investigation to be done on the codefendants .The prosecution further stated that some evidence was necessary to be produce for the court to prove that linnet was guilty and had a case to answer .the fact that the defendant did not have knowledge of the codefendants death was not clear and needed further investigation and another review of the case was called.