For "good morning america," linsey davis, abc news, new york. Let's get more from dan abrams and nancy grace. And, dan, I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before. Two convictions. Two... See More
For "good morning america," linsey davis, abc news, new york. Let's get more from dan abrams and nancy grace. And, dan, I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before. Two convictions. Two reversals. But the state's going in a third time. That's right. On different issues. In the first case, the court says they improperly admitted all these other affairs. In the second case, they say they improperly admitted allegations that he molested his daughter. The problem for prosecutors, now, is, "a" they have a motive problem, which is, you don't have to prove motive. But it certainly helps. And the question for this jury may be why? But to me the more important issue, you have another guy who has been convicted, whose dna is found at the crime scene. He wasn't a family member. So, the dna shouldn't be there. I think that's going to be very powerful for the defense. Nancy, big challenges for the prosecution. But they also seem convinced. Well, I don't see all of the obstacles that you two are seeing. And anyone who has ever tried murder cases would know that very often things get reversed on appeal. One of the first cases I ever tried was a case tried by somebody else, 14 years before when I was in law school. And I had to retry it. Now, when dan is saying motive evidence. The first trial brought in 12 different women that claimed they had affairs with him, including a guard at the jail during pretrial while he was waiting his murder trial. They didn't say you couldn't bring in any motive evidence. So, let's just say they bring in six different affairs. Cut it right down the middle. That still gives motive. But they're not going to be able to do that here because that's why they got reversed on appeal the first time. And if nancy wants to talk about evidence that's not going to be admitted to the jury, why not talk about the fact that this other guy, charles bonet, apparently had a foot fetish. I would love to talk about it. He had a foot fetish, which is not going to be in front of the jury. And let me explain why that's important. Hang on a sec. Let me explain why it's important. I don't have a problem with a foot fetish. Nancy, you may like a foot fetish. Let me explain why it's relevant here. Charles bonet, at the crime scene, at the car, they found the victims shoes sitting on top of the car. And she was half-naked. And the question would be, okay. The prosecutors may say this guy manipulated the crime scene. But there's evidence of this guy's dna at the scene. What's the answer, nancy? Here's the deal on bonet. He sold the husband, camm, the .38 weapons, at least one used at the murder scene. This is not what you're talking about, dan abrams. You're not talking about the fact that the little girl, his little girl, kimberly's blood spatter, not a smear, along with copper from the bullet casing was in the weave of the father's t-shirt. This is not a smear. This is blood spatter that you can only get at the time of the shooting on the daddy, the husband's t-shirt. Now, what about that, abrams? Well, I'll tell you. The experts, as you know, and the defense are going to dispute that. They're going to say that's not how it happened. You're right that that's the strongest piece of evidence for the prosecution in this case. That does not address the fundamental problem they have -- ta talk about the affairs and the foot fetish. And you forgot his admission. He admitted how he did the murders. The fundamental problem there's another guy for the defense to point at to say, his dna is at the scene. You have a problem. We're going to have you back. Another complicated one. Let's get the weather from
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.