Summary
Holmes’ first motion Wednesday, claiming federal prosecutors used arguments in Balwani’s trial that would have led jurors in her trial to acquit her, could be counterproductive, said Stanford Law professor Robert Weisberg. “There is no formal legal error in presenting arguably inconsistent evidence or characterizations of defendants in separate sequential trials,” Weisberg said. “As a general matter each conviction stands on its own. I could … imagine Davila being annoyed by this.”
Read More