Erin Flynn, a different attorney representing the U.S. government than during the trial, said during her 15 minutes that the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence so that “any rational fact finder could find proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
She contended that it did matter what happened before the cuffing, because it was related to the excessive force allegations. Regarding the issue of the “proof” being the testimony of perjurers, she said it is up to the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, and the verdicts were reached even after the defense “hammered” the credibility issue with witnesses.
“There was plenty here for the jury to convict the defendant of both counts,” she said.
Even if she were to think the jury instructions were incorrect, Flynn said that is rarely a reason to overturn a verdict.
The comments made by the two-man prosecution team about Eaton’s not testifying were made in response to statements the defense made, Flynn countered, and they neither mislead nor enflamed the jury, which acquitted Eaton on the charges being discussed during the times his lack of testimony was raised.
In his rebuttal, True said the indictment was replete with wording about offenses alleged to have happened after Stinnett was in custody, and he believed the jury was made to believe it was illegal for Eaton to say anything to the deputies about what should be in their reports, but it is not a crime for him to direct or instruct them about what should be included, and what he did was “not corrupt persuasion.”
True touched again on the jury instructions, and Senior Judge Eugene E. Siler Jr. asked him whether he questioned the instructions at the time of the trial. True said he had not, but it turned out they were key issues.