We acknowledge that it is going to be difficult for a jury to hear that Charles Boney was there, that Charles Boney sold a firearm, when you're talking about the murder of a young woman and her two children.

He was facing a great number of years, regardless. But I think this does show some compassion on the part of the jury.

The purpose is not going to go to prove anything.

These years we've assumed fingerprint evidence was infallible. The scientific evidence shows it's not and a palm print is even less reliable than a fingerprint.

We're on trial for murder, not for supplying a handgun.

I wouldn't have advised him to say anything without a lawyer present.