Evidence, not speculation
"It is no secret that the prosecution will use Lang's word against Young, and produce bank records that show two things:
That Young made more than 50 significant cash withdrawals in the span of the indictment against him, many of which were above $9,000, all of which were less than $10,000 to avoid IRS reporting requirements.
In that same timeframe, Lang's balance in his bank account increased dramatically, so much so that the former Alcorn State football player lived a lifestyle not normally accessible to most public school teachers, complete with a loaded SUV and stories of lavish nights out."
Unless the US Attorney's office can show more than this, the case should not go to the jury. Godwin has got to have a "bagman" that can tie LY and Lang together at either end of the transfers, or the case does not rise to the level of evidence necessary to get to a jury. The jury will be instructed not to speculate, but to base their decision on the evidence presented, or lack of it.
Simply because one man spent a lot of money, and another acquired a lot during a given time, does not mean that the second received it from the first. There has to be something tying them to each other. Does Godwin have that evidence? If he doesn't, he's dumber than most US Attorneys I have met. If he doesn't, then he has allowed a "bluff" to push him into trying a case he can't win, and possibly putting his career on the line.
Even with a "bagman" as a witness, is he believeable? I would think that if LY did this he would use someone he could trust not to "roll on him". My personal belief is that there will be break in the chain of custody of the money at some point, and that based on that the jury will acquit.
RTR