The state did not prove he didn’t prove he did it.
“The state did not prove he didn’t prove he did it.”
If I understand the entry, they did prove he did it in the first trial. The state isn’t saying he did or didn’t do it for the purpose of tossing out the first trial. They are saying a clerk didn’t do something right and took the fair trial out of it. If the evidence is there, and the first jury found him guilty based upon it, then this technicality doesn’t change the evidence. He’s still guilty, just have a second trial and use the evidence provided. The defense is trying to stall the state into not having a second trial because of expense and all their judges have overloaded dockets. So he won’t be found not guilty but he’ll be on the streets.
wy69