Unless he's a MILF but the other way around.
So that would be FILF.
WOW sarn't. That is all I can say; WOW.
Court proceedings can be quite the maze. If I were his defense lawyer, I would first start by excluding any past history of his (even though in reality it lends support to culpability) through the Montgomery precedent. Then I would obviously move to exclude any/all witnesses on some rediculous grounds of racism/sexism or something. After that, I would counsel him to NOT take the stand lest they impeach him. Then, now that the jury can hear what is going on, discredit the witnesses and imply the possibility of the defendants innocence. The easiest way would be to establish whether or not they had had a drinks before or during the flight, and then establish that perhaps they had been mistaken. A REALLY effective method would be as follows:
DC: Defense Counsel
SA: States Attorney
WI: Witness
DE: Defendant
JU: Judge
DC: "[WI] is it at all possible that you were mistaken?"
WI: "Not really, I saw what I saw. I couldnt forget it."
DC: "Sure. Then perhaps you could answer me this. What color was the tie that I wore yesterday?"
SA: "Objection as to relevancy, your honor."
DC: (Without hesitation)"Your honor, the witness claims to have seen the defendants genitals without any possibility of being mistaken. With such an oustanding perception, surely the witness would have no trouble answering the question."
Regardless of whether the judge allows it or not, the point was made to the jury and that is what counts. It could be a pen or any obscure item that the witness could not possibly recall. Then to wrap it all up go with the standard "Innocent man going about his business, faulty identification, blahh blahh blahh. YOU may be able to believe the witnesses ability to observe and recall without any error at all, but the law does not. The law says a conviction must be beyond any reasonable doubt, and that man's LIFE (dramatic pause) hangs in the balance."
In reality he is just a scum bag.
