\u201cThe scientific evidence on cadaver dogs \u2013 I don\u2019t know how good that is going to be,\u201d he said. \u201cThat\u2019s all whether the principles are accepted in the scientific community as reliable.\u201d<\/p>\n
Divers searched Vallecito Reservoir several times after trained cadaver dogs \u201chit\u201d on several spots near the dam. But no human remains are believed to have been found during those searches.<\/p>\n
The indictment says DNA testing showed Dylan was the source of blood on a love seat in Mark Redwine\u2019s living room, and it couldn\u2019t eliminate Dylan as a source of blood found on the couch, floor in front of the couch, corner of the coffee table and beneath a rug.<\/p>\n
Not being able to eliminate someone is less definitive than saying someone is the source of blood. What\u2019s more, Dylan spent several years in the house before his death, and he shares similar DNA characteristics with his father, said Wells, who has practiced criminal law for 33 years.<\/p>\n
A forensic anthropologist determined Dylan Redwine\u2019s skull had two small markings consistent with tool marks from a knife. Likewise, a wildlife officer with Colorado Parks and Wildlife said no animal known to the area would transport a skull 1\u00bd miles through rugged terrain. But defense lawyers are likely to call expert witnesses to challenge those findings and offer a counter view, Wells said.<\/p>\n
Defense lawyers will seek to suppress certain details, such as \u201ccompromising pictures\u201d of Mark Redwine, arguing that admission of such evidence prejudices their client without proving a crime, Wells said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese compromising photos \u2013 I can\u2019t believe they would be admissible,\u201d he said. \u201cI don\u2019t know what they show, but they\u2019re not going to put Mark Redwine in a very good light. If they\u2019re compromising somehow, the jury\u2019s going to look at those and go, \u2018I don\u2019t like Mark Redwine.\u2019 What does that show? The prejudice that can come to him would outweigh any probative value that they would have.\u201d<\/p>\n
Finally, defense lawyers will downplay video surveillance that shows \u201clittle to no personal interaction between Mark Redwine and his 13-year-old (son),\u201d saying it\u2019s not relevant and doesn\u2019t prove anything.<\/p>\n
\u201cJust because (details) are in this indictment doesn\u2019t mean they\u2019ll be evidence allowed to be used (at trial),\u201d Wells said. \u201cThe job of a defense lawyer is to keep evidence out that may be prejudicial to the client. That sounds bad \u2013 you\u2019re trying to exclude evidence \u2013 but it\u2019s evidence that\u2019s just going to confuse the jury, essentially.\u201d<\/p>\n
He added: \u201cThe case is circumstantial. There are lots of suppression issues. There are lots of relevance issues.\u201d<\/p>\n
Circumstantial evidence requires jurors to apply a level of reasoning or inference to reach a factual conclusion.<\/p>\n
For example, a mother may notice cookies missing in a cookie jar. She may ask both of her children if they took the cookies, and both may deny it. But one child has cookie crumbs on his face. The mother may infer that that child took the cookies even though she didn\u2019t see him take the cookies or eat the cookies, and she can\u2019t be sure someone else didn\u2019t take the cookies and give them to her son.<\/p>\n
Direct evidence tends to be more factual; for example, video showing a defendant committing a crime, or a recorded confession from a defendant or a witness who saw a crime be committed. Prosecutors used a grand jury to secure the indictment. Grand juries hear only the prosecution\u2019s evidence and issues indictments based on \u201cprobable cause,\u201d a relatively low standard of proof.<\/p>\n
State prosecutors sometimes rely on grand juries to gauge how strong of a case they have. If a grand jury is willing to issue an indictment, they feel better about filing formal charges.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s more, it allows district attorneys to distance themselves from the outcome.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the district attorney\u2019s case goes south on him, he doesn\u2019t have to take the burden for saying, \u2018I chose to file it,\u2019\u201d Wells said. \u201cIf he loses, people can say, \u2018Well, you should have waited.\u2019 But in this case, you give it to the grand jury and they say, \u2018Well, there\u2019s probable cause now.\u201d<\/p>\n
Champagne said a grand jury process allowed him to tap the community for feedback on the strength of his case and whether probable cause exists to move forward. The jurors are vetted for objectivity and impartiality similar to any other jury, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe wanted the involvement of the community as early in this case as possible,\u201d Champagne said. \u201cTo be able to bring in 12 citizens from the community to examine the evidence, to be able to look at it closely and mull over whether there\u2019s probable cause gives us input and feedback about what our community thinks of this case, the strength of our case, and the wisdom of proceeding forward with this case.\u201d<\/p>\n