Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Lee
There's plenty of blame to go around, sure.
Question is, how much more of a compelling case, competently investigated and expertly presented, do you think the prosecution should be required to deliver to overcome the observations I made?
|
How much more? "Enough" more.
Look, it's the job of the state -- which means cops/prosecutors -- to present the jury with a case that establishes that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the cops help CREATE a reasonable doubt, through their own stupidity, incompetence or outright improper conduct, they are undermining the ability to obtain a conviction, no matter how guilty the accused might ACTUALLY be.
The system puts the onus on the state, as it should. And the state ****ed up royally.
Would THAT jury at THAT point in time have acquitted him no matter how good the evidence was? Even if the cops were perfect? Sure, maybe, but we'll certainly never know becuase the cops made it pretty goddamn easy for a jury that was already inclined to acquit him to acquit him.
Compare to Aaron Hernandez, where the evidence was completely circumstantial, and yet so overwhelming, and so meticulously and carefully presented to the jury, that they found him guilty despite Hernandez having truly excellent defense lawyers.