Josh Kolsrud Breaks Down the Restelli Conspiracy Trial On Court TV

In his latest appearance on Court TV, Defense attorney Josh Kolsrud questioned the prosecution’s strategy of calling this particular family witness so early in the Restelli conspiracy trial. He explained that jurors tend to remember testimony presented first and last, and this witness, in Josh’s view, did not strongly support the state’s theory of manipulation or direct responsibility for the killing. Instead, the testimony introduced subtle references to the victim’s drinking and temperament—details prosecutors usually try to avoid because they can unintentionally humanize the defense’s self-defense narrative.

When Family Testifies Against Family

Josh highlighted how unusual — and uncomfortable — it can be for jurors to watch a family member testify against a defendant relative. Drawing a comparison to another high-profile case, Kolsrud noted that “cooperating family witnesses” rarely sit well with juries, especially when one sibling has already taken a deal. While such testimony can be powerful, it also raises credibility questions about motivation, pressure, and self-interest.

The Case Comes Down to Corroboration

According to Kolsrud, the prosecution’s biggest hurdle is corroborating evidence. Family testimony alone, particularly from witnesses who have flipped, isn’t enough. Josh emphasized that jurors will ultimately focus on whether physical evidence, timelines, or independent proof actually backs up what cooperating witnesses claim. Without that support, he suggested, the state’s conspiracy narrative could struggle to hold together.

Key Takeaways from Josh Kolsrud

• Early witness order matters more than most people realize
• Family members testifying against defendants often trigger juror skepticism
• Cooperating witnesses must be backed by solid, independent evidence
• This case may hinge less on emotion — and more on corroboration