That doesn't mean it is not noticed when she fails to give into the prosecution's B.S.
I'm amazed the prosecutors can say what they do, with a straight face. It may have been this, it may have been that, no one can say...but Zim may be guilty, so declare him guilty(?). That is BACKWARDS.
How could the judge not see that? She could have just agreed, and saved the jury the trouble, and Zim, the risk of a jury falsely convicting him on lesser charge. But that's been the prosecution's game all along. Throw mud. Confuse and throw out reasons for doubt. It may have been this, it may have been that. If your Aunt had balls she'd be your transsexual uncle.
How can a man be convicted on doubt towards possibility of guilt? They need to prove beyond reasonable doubt (AFAIK).
Whatever happened to the principle of truth being above and beyond the adversarial nature? I suppose it depends on where one decides to cut it. The "cut here" line repeatedly chosen by the prosecution indicate to me there is little or no real truth within members of the prosecution as individuals, and the D.A.'s "office" as institution either.
Government is nobodies friend, other than those employed by it? Just hang on, don't buck the system (even when it's wrong) and wait for FAT retirement.
Well stated.
I'm no lawyer, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are charged with murder, the prosecution needs to show beyond a reasonable doubt that you killed the dead guy. However, if it is already agreed that you did kill the dead guy, it is the shooter's obligation to show it was justified. Affirmative defense.
Experts, please correct me if I am mistaken.