Do you know anything about the facts of the case or are you just drawing a conclusion based upon the result? Suppose the guy had been sentenced to death without the benefit of an impartial jury of his peers? What if the conviction is based upon triple hearsay or evidence that was seized from his home without a warrant? How about if the prosecution withheld from the defense the names of five eye witnesses that would have exonerated the defendant? What if the prosecution has exonerating DNA evidence that it failed to disclose. What if the judge or the defendant's attorney showed up to the trial drunk every day?
All of the issues that I have raised directly concern the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. My point is that you are drawing a knee-jerk conclusion without knowing anything about the facts and issues in the case.
Apparently some FReepers have a lot of trouble with English. For the third time, there is no conclusion in that statement. You are assuming a conclusion and imposing it on me. Please read the thread before attacking me.