[backrow]

I posted the below over in the AA thread. But it bears repeating.

"Last I heard, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

The case against ST is at best, a he-said, he-said argument.

That's why they try the case. The Prosecution tries to prove him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The Defense only needs to cast a shadow of doubt.

For the purposes of this Forum, let us presume ST is innocent."


Juries do strange things. They look at the reasonable doubt portion during trials very closely.

Having foremanned a jury trial once, I can form an opinion, and still look at both sides. I suspect a one-to-two day trial.

Hung juries happen because it is hard to convince all 12 or 8 or however many in the jury.

That shadow of doubt is easier to cast with the highest paid defense lawyers available. They seemingly know the angles.

Do not look for a plea, do not look for a reduced charge. This prosecutor is using this trial for his own career furtherance.

So, almost as in FB, you have two very skilled contestants, the Prosecution, and the Defense, each with his "spin" on the issue. But the burden is on the Prosecution.