I don’t claim to be a lawyer by any means. I just noted that you were actually honest about the prosecutors counting on juries with a dog in this fight.
You don’t owe the defendants any presumption of innocence, you are welcome to you prejudices. The jury does.
Again, you assume something that is totally legally incorrect regarding the often misapplied “presumption of innocence” concept.
Despite what some people think, prospective jurors owe defendants a promise to consider only the evidence to be heard in court, and an ABSENCE of any presumptions of either guilt or innocence.
JURIES do NOT owe defendants a presumption of innocence, any more than they can owe the government a presumption of guilt.
The COURT owes Defs a “presumption of innocence,” but juries are expected to be neutral, not for innocence nor guilt, until all testimony is heard, depending on that testimony and admitted evidence only, and the judge’s charge to the jury is given.
Regarding that “presumption of innocence,” for prosecutors, that only lasts until LE has developed a provable case, as they have so obviously done in the instant Waco matter.
The reason these Def lawyers (and FR posters) are trying so hard to argue this case in the newspapers and “on the courthouse steps” is because they know they have such a bad case inside the courtroom. If they thought the overwhelming evidence gave them any chance before the jury, they would be making their case there, not everywhere else.
re: Your not being a lawyer. Not to be critical, but that has been so obvious from so much more than just this one post.....