Why?
In many cases, especially high-profile cases, the prosecution comes half-cocked .....expecting that the evidence that would work against some bloke off the street with no cash for a gilded defense-team. The only problem is that most of these celebrities garner defense lawyers that are the best that money can buy, and consequently the prosecution (which apparently is going by what would work against your run-of-the-mill state-provided attorney) find themselves facing a legal team that can split a hair nine-ways and almost get a camel through a needle's eye! Consequently holes are punched in the prosecution's argument, and once that happens a sea change could easily happen.
Eg: the Oj Simpson case. I believe OJ killed those 2 people. The evidence was immense. People have been sent to the chair or gas chamber for much less than what was brought against him ...people who cannot afford a premier defense team. The prosecution must have thought they had a slam-dunk. However a point occured in the middle of the trial where some of the things the prosecution did (like some of the witnesses they brought) were used against them. Now, i personally find that silly, but it was a good play (as controversial as it might be) by the jury. And with the jury on tenterhooks trying to be, ahem ahem scoff scoff, 'fair', then the hair splicing starts and a case that was previously a 'slam dunk' ends up blowing in the faces of the prosecution (and community in general).
I think they should have a 'crack team' prosecution whenever there is a crack team defense team .,.....because prosecutors who normally go after Joe Blow, Jane Doe and Broke Bill from down the street normally seem to underestimate the abilities of some of these gold-gild defense lawyers, and hence get played right out of a 'perfect' case.
There is a reason some of these defense lawyers get paid multi-millions, they specialize at winning the unwinnable. And prosecutors need to wake up to the fact that there is no slam-dunk case, no matter the mound of evidence, until the gavel hits the block and the case is closed! Sheesh .....that guy, R. Kelly, got off one state even though there is a video-tape of him doing some rather 'peculiar' stuff to some girl! Comeon ....you don't get more incriminating evidence than a bl@@dy video-tape in the guy's house! Unwinnable ....but R.Kelly is out making music videos where he is depcited wearing a 'bandit' mask as if he is some renegade of yore who got away from the authorities (which he did).
(P.S: The prosecution team in the M.Jackson deal is quite good .......do not expect M.J to moonwalk out of that one. Hopefully, since again, the gavel hasn't come down .....yet! And also note, in the Martha stewart case, the prosecution was very well prepared. And i am certain Spitzer will try his best to get Frank Quatronne after he managed to wriggle away the last time .....and Grubman and Blodget in my opinion got off easy. But in all these cases the prosecution was as good, if not better, than the defense. Why, because a point had to be made. But in the most cases the prosecution that goes against the high-dollar higher-octane defense lawyers that celebrities have are weak shadows of the defence ....which is why Eminem can pistol-whip a guy senseless, and walk out of the courtroom in less than a week. Let your average American go and pistol whip a person ....they'll be spending quality time in gaol!)
Jayson Williams was under the influence of alchohol.
Jayson Williams was playing with a shotgun.
The shotgun Jayson Williams was playing with blew a hole in his chaufeurs stomach.
Jayson Williams then conspired to change the story and hide evidence.
Jayson Williams was not found guilty of reckless manslaughter.
But the chaufeur is still DEAD.
It isn't about the lawyers, it is about the strength of the evidence. The prosecution has home court advantage and people like you who are nothing more than rubber stamps who can't wait to vote guilty. Why even bother with trials?
It is interesting that Freepers are distrustful of the media in all other areas, the only exception is the media's reporting of criminal trials, which is nothing more than the prosecutions point of view.
There was a lot more to the OJ case than was ever reported by the media. It was much easier to say that OJ is rich and his lawyers played the "race card" and the jury was ignorant.
The public could understand this and then go back to watching music videos or a silly sitcom on TV or posting how guilty OJ is on some message board.