On the top of page 17 Mr. Reddick starts his talk about evidence not being present. He asks if no evidence would prevent the perspective jurors from convicting. One juror did and was subsequently dismissed. Yes, in most cases there is no evidence. Then it is a question of which party you believe is more credible. Here Mr. Reddick leaves the impression that if this victim testifies that the defendant did this, it is an open and shut case. Then further at the bottom of page 18 Mr.Reddick implies that it is state law that you must convict if there is no medical evidence. It is not state law that you MUST convict, but court precedent has upheld rape convictions without evidence. In these exchanges Mr. Reddick puts in the jurors’ minds that the sole requirement is the testimony of the victim, and you must convict if the victim states it happened. He takes away the jury’s role which is to decide who is credible and the role in which evidence or lack of should play. In this case the victim made a claim to which there should have been physical evidence if it were collected soon enough. In this case, evidence was obtained immediately. In fact, overwhelming evidence: the victim did not bathe, two rape kits had been performed by two different hospitals, both parties clothing was obtained before they were washed, and the bed linen were obtained before they could be washed. All came back negative. The victim was adamant about what he said happened, but there was no physical proof to support that. But because Mr. Reddick’s voir dire, the jury was directed to believe it didn’t matter and they had to convict. I, strongly feel that Mr. Reddick be barred from practicing law in any state in this union due to his actions.