> 'if the defendant believed that all he had done was render mr neely temporarily unconscious, he would have immediately moved to secure him in another way because he would have believed mr neely would wake up at any second and either attack someone or run away. > 'if he was going to have revived, he would have revived in a matter of seconds. the defendant clearly knows mr neely is not waking up any time soon. any lawyerfags here? this level of testimony is really allowed by the prosecution? did they have an expert establish these facts in court? it seems like bullshit.
Canada