Does Darlie Routier Deserve A New Trial?

[watson]

Thought I'd start a new thread just to discuss if the trial given to Darlie Routier was unfair, so that she deserves a new one, and the other Darlie thread can be to discuss the evidence, facts, and who did it, if not her.
So, was the trial unfair? Decide for yourselves the transcripts are available on line, I found 'justicefordarlie.org' best, because you can click on the volume of the trial you want and there's a word search feature, and index.
IMO she defintely deserves a new trial....The problem was not enough time was allowed the defense to have a fair trial. The crime occured 6-6-96, she was arrested 6-18-96, the trail started 11/96. Worse she was unable to hire any trial lawyers till 10/96...30 days before trial (affidavit of Darin Routier). That's just a ridiculous too short time for a fair trial in a modern day complex capital murder case. It's bound to mean a defense that is unprepared, ineffective, and incompetent. In addition the whole trial was held during, through, and around the Xmas Holidays 1996-97!
So, was the defense in fact, unprepared, ineffective, and incompetent? Read the transcripts, IMO it's a joke, there was no defense. Some examples.........
1.) Like the bad lawyer joke in the 'Cousin Vinny' movie, the defense is objected to, in it's own opening statement, twice! TTvol.28
2.) In a circumstancial case, where cross examination of the states witnesses/evidence was crucial, the defense didn't have cross examination. Not even the most obvious, necessary, and common sense questions were asked of the states witnesses, speculation, or evidence. There's too many examples of this to list here.
3.) Her attorney's were so unprepared that often they don't seem to know who witnesses even are, have no idea what their going to say, and instead of conducting trial, spend their time asking background questions, and leafing through witnesses files and test results for the 1st time in the courtroom!. Blood spatter witness Tom Bevil TT vol.38 is 1 of the best of many examples.
4.) Her attorney's (especially 1 of the 2) constantly made inappropriate, off the cuff comments, especially it seems after lunch, about their personal likes, dislikes, what's ever in their heads, often getting admonished and embarrassed by the judge. One example, while questioning an earnest and young sounding state forensic witness in TT vol 39, the attorney suddenly bursts out with...'so your the pro from Dover...' The sincere witness stutters out...'I never lived in a Dover..' and the embarrassed attorney, has to explain it's a phrase from the 1970 movie 'MASH', or maybe from the MASH tv show, with like 'Hawkeye', Korea and stuff. The witness mystified why this has anything to do with a capital murder case, where 2 children were murdered, and a young womans life hangs in the balance, can only say 'I guess I missed that one (movie or show)' to laughter from the audience at the attorney.
5.) At 1 point the judge stops the trial (TT vol 39 60% through) calls the defense attorneys to the bench, and just lambasts them for incompetence, inefectiveness, and mis-behavior. He says he wants the prosecution to wrap up ASAP, then he'll speed right to and through any defense case, to end what he implies is a farce as soon as possible. (He should've declared a mis-trial at this point IMO).
6.) Lastly, the judge seems to make at least 1 clear mistake of law, (often needed for a new trial), when he allows a non expert witness to give opinion testimony (over a proper (for a change) defense objection) TT vol 30 witness Berry Dickey.
IMO this was just not a fair trial. It's 1 of the worst I've ever read. It's like a ballgame where 1 team showed up and the other didn't. IMO it's not American justice (especially in a death penalty case), it's not Texas justice. Whether she did it or not she deserves a trial where 'both' sides do their jobs and so do we, so we can have any faith in the juries verdict. But, what do others think. The transcripts are long (trials always are) but well worth the effort.