Since I spend most of my days thinking up murder mystery plots, I often wonder what it must be like to be a defendant, such as Raynella Dossett-Leath—branded “The Black Widow” in her Tennessee hometown. Of course, I would be scared s---less, and I would want the best lawyer and expert witnesses money could buy. But like Ms. Dossett-Leath, since I don’t have Phil Spector’s fortune, I would have to make do with a lawyer who would truly let me “assist in my own defense.”

• Sidebar: Before I served on a criminal jury, I thought it would be better to have a bench trial. Since then I think differently. But most of the people I know tell me they would also prefer a bench trial.

If I were “BW” (“The Black Widow”), in general here’s what I would do:

1) To find the funds for some world-class expert witnesses, I would “sell the farm.” However, the Tennessee probate courts have managed to withhold BW’s inheritance from her. So, the first thing I would do is find a way to take the probate decision to federal court (rather like Anna Nicolle Smith did—although I would hire a federal-court attorney who wouldn’t ply me with drugs). Then—assured the feds would rule that what the probate court did was illegal—I would borrow money against the value of my husband’s estate to pay for the experts.

2) While I’m skeptical of the prosecution’s objectivity in the BW case, I would nonetheless have my defense attorney submit evidence to the state showing that Mr. Leath committed suicide and asking the state to drop charges. Barring the state’s acquiescence, I would ask the trial judge for a new evidentiary hearing. In the hearing my lawyer would ask the judge to prohibit the state from presenting the demonstrably erroneous evidence from the Tennessee crime lab.

3) I would scream to high heaven if my lawyer didn’t prepare better cross-examination strategies of the prosecution witnesses than in the first trial and also demand that he present an incredibly persuasive affirmative defense that my husband committed suicide.

Why?

First, the Dossett-Leath trial is all about the forensics: was it suicide or was it homicide?

Second, I doubt that many retrials result in acquittals (this is something I need to research). Even if my assumption is wrong, I wouldn’t want to risk it. It would be best to have the whole thing dropped as soon as possible. If the case isn’t dropped, at the very least I would want the incredibly flawed state crime lab evidence to be kept out of court. Without it, the prosecution has almost no case.

Third, the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in the first trial convinced this former juror there was reasonable doubt—but then I’m a reasonable-doubt sort of juror. It didn’t convince most of the original jury panel.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating as regards the Dossett-Leath case, a defense attorney cannot rely on a reasonable doubt defense. Such a defense never works. You must present a coherent narrative of the crime that convinces the jury your client is innocent.

To be continued . . . .