Opinion ID: 2069831
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dobson's testimony

Text: Dobson's testimony largely was consistent with Lipps's testimony except for disagreement on whether Dobson agreed with the decision not to present the alibi witnesses. Dobson testified that Lipps did not want to present the alibi witnesses after the government rested its case. Dobson told Lipps that he thought abandoning the alibi was a bad idea ... because they had been introduced to the jury and they would be expecting to hear from [the] alibi witnesses. When asked to explain why it was important to put on the witnesses after introducing them, Dobson stated: Because we had introduced them to the jury and basically it has always been  maybe perhaps it's the way I have been raised with things that come along when. But when you promise somebody something, you need to deliver. And if you don't, generally people feel that you can't. In our neighborhood, we say, put up or shut up, or put your money where your mouth is. It was that type of situation that we introduced them, and the jury would be expecting them. Anything less would just be probably looked upon as we were bluffing or that we couldn't deliver. In addition, Dobson testified that the final decision on whether to abandon the alibi was Lipp's to make, but have Lipps knew Dobson wanted to advance the alibi defense. Dobson remembered Lipps stating in his closing argument that, because the government had not proved its case with Sawyer's testimony, he was not going to dignify the government's case by presenting the alibi witnesses. [10]