I mean sure prosecutors don’t always go after a case maybe the way they should, but it’d be pretty hard to believe that they wouldn’t be able to establish the admitted facts of the case. I would have to see something telling me that they neglected to inform the jury of the literal basis of the case before I give them a pass.
To use an example, this would you be like you arguing that the lawyers in the OJ Simpson trial failed because they neglected to tell the jury that OJ been accused of killing two people. That’s not messing up DNA evidence that’s literally why they’re there. It’s a stretch too far.
I mean sure prosecutors don’t always go after a case maybe the way they should, but it’d be pretty hard to believe that they wouldn’t be able to establish the admitted facts of the case. I would have to see something telling me that they neglected to inform the jury of the literal basis of the case before I give them a pass.
To use an example, this would you be like you arguing that the lawyers in the OJ Simpson trial failed because they neglected to tell the jury that OJ been accused of killing two people. That’s not messing up DNA evidence that’s literally why they’re there. It’s a stretch too far.