Under the law, he never has to explain anything....but he voluntarily (per the aff.) talked to police. What he said then becomes admissible (assuming voluntariness, not in custody or that he was Mirandized). He could have said nothing and the fact that he said nothing could never be presented in court.Yes, but if the COD isn't from a gun, does he need to explain it? The dude reeks per the PCA, but I'm not sure the term 'flimsy' isn't accurate. Though there may well be details/evidence that further the claims against the accused. I hope they have the right guy. I hope they can prove it.
However, according to police, he said he was never there, said that no one else has ever used his gun and he had no explanation for how a cartridge ejected from his gun (assuming the testing is correct) was between the bodies.
That is decent evidence that puts him at the scene and has him lying about being at the scene. That's not nothing. Juries are allowed to decide whether they believe a person is lying and more than that, they are allowed to infer why they are lying. Is that alone "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Don't know, but no one piece of evidence has to be.
This is a classic case of keeping your pie hole shut helps a whole lot. With all the assumptions above, that is very harmful evidence against him. It's not like the prosecution needs his permission to use his statements in court.