Until the prosecution find outs. "Why would the defendant hire an acting coach to prep them for the trial if they were innocent?" Another piece of meaningless circumstantial evidence that will be held up as a definitive proof of guilt.
Why would an innocent defendant need a lawyer. Why would someone innocent refuse to answer the question. Why would an innocent person object to their DNA being taken?
Having worked on a lot of trials and prepped many witnesses to testify, my opinion is that the prosecution has no idea when defendants do this.
would that fact be admissible as evidence in the trial? Seems like it shouldn't be because it's irrelevant