There is also the children who were apparently present at one point as well, as other potential witnesses we aren't aware of yet.That doesn't mean he (Or his brother) didn't have the bat before hand, he could just had it leaning against something for the video, but was armed before the video started the defense could very well make a claim the bat came first and can only be disputed via two witnesses who were encouraging orange shirt to continue to act out.
Whether she simply decided not to give it to the police, or gave it to her lawyer to give to the police and that didn't happen, or was advised not to by said lawyer is a moot point here, as is that fact that the DA didn't get the tape immediately. All accounts point to the family making the tape public themselves, indicating that they weren't attempting to hide the tape. Not sure what the defense could even argue there. Clearly Orange guy's family wanted people to see the tape, so they weren't hiding its existence from the public (and therefore the police). Nor am I sure why the lawyer didn't at least give a copy of the tape to the cops. This is just a weird situation all around. Looks more like this woman was given bad advice to go public with the tape via the media rather than give it directly to the cops.I doubt she "didn't know" as when it was just a verbal altercation both sides made mention of giving the tape to police.
As far as professional actions from the lawyer, its scummy and she is a third party to the criminal case and doesn't paint the client in a good light, which makes it even more questionable.
Again the defense maybe able to use the "the DA had to find this out form the media" to cast doubt on the jury's mind. This isn't like a third party (from all who were involved) who found the clip via reviewing security footage of the day.
A lot of this is speculation based on facts we don't have. We don't have toxicology reports so this is a worthless hypothetical. He may not have been on anything at all. Maybe he was hyped up by adrenaline; we don't know.The bolded part is why I also have doubt...
If you go back and watch the end of the video again, you can hear orange guy clearly say, "Point it" like he had been saying throughout the video, and there was no sound of movement (like someone rushing towards someone). He was also standing close to the old guy judging by sound and where everyone was in the ensuing chaos...too close to charge him from a distance, but maybe close enough to take a swing, however, he sounds way too calm prior to the gunshots; its doubtful that he was preparing an attack. After the first two gunshots, he can be seen running away from the two gunmen and tossing the bat back at the father. He was subsequently shot from behind by the son with the shotgun; you can tell this because his body is laying away from the gunmen as his girlfriend runs up. He seems to have been shot in the back of the head. So he was shot in the back, possibly while in retreat, and we can't tell if he took a swung prior to the first shots being fired.
The kid's ages will factor into whether or not they are considered reliable witnesses or whether or not they will even be allowed to testify. Older kids/preteens/teenagers will be able to testify just fine. Even assuming the adults are the only witnesses, it maybe more of a toss up, dependable on other factors.