Friday, June 03, 2005
The defense lawyer argued this was sufficient to raise reasonable doubt.
This kind of reminds me of that old tort case, Summers v. Tice, where the plaintiff was shot simultaneously by two different hunters and could not show which bullet caused the injury.
Unfortunately, in a criminal case, the court probably can't shift the burden of proof to the defendants, as it did in Summers.
Fortunately, it does not appear to be necessary in this case, since one of the brothers finally confessed to committing the rape itself.
Curiously, the reason the rapist was finally caught was because his brother's DNA (from a subsequent crime) matched the DNA in the rape case.
Does Law and Order know about this case yet?