Popa….
“Also, not sure what you mean they can’t present an alternative theory. The defense can still present true evidence and argue it indicates something.”
Alternative theory of the case in criminal defense is not what one would call “true evidence.”
If Client X tells his attorney “I broke in and stole $50,000 from Quick Mart Thursday Night.” The attorney #1 can’t put X on the stand if X tells the Attorney I’m going to testify I didn’t do it. The attorney also can call others to the stand, impugn their integrity and try to show that they were in the area, needed money, had shady backgrounds, knew the money was in the store overnight and the next day were seen making large purchases for cash.>>>>that would be an alternative theory of the case, that Y, an employee of Quick Mart, who had a drug or gambling problem, who knew the access points most accessible and which night a large amount of cash would be in the store, has no alibi for the night in question and paid his bookie or dealer $10,000 in cast Friday morning was a likely suspect, likely enough to raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors. BUT this alternative theory of the crime isn’t ‘true evidence’ if Y didn’t commit the crime. What it is, is sworn testimony of those called for examination and cross, along with the attorney’s questions that become part of the trial transcript.
Again: Disclaimer, I do not practice criminal law, and except for the every 4=5 year pro bono case ordered to take by the court I don’t enter a criminal trial courtroom. Also rules vary by jurisdiction. Most criminal cases occur in state courts not federal.