[Pelham]

Yeah, I thought the OJ comparison was pretty funny, too. It provides an entertaining counterpoint to your side's claim that the verdict is certain proof of guilt. Maybe you all can find some of the Dream Team to help Sutton quash the appeal.

[1rudeboy]

Speaking of "evidence," and "facts," one of the primary contentions made by others on this thread was that a subsequent arrest of the smuggler (and the "fact" that the U.S. Attorney tried to conceal it) allowed the inference that the original prosecution was malicious. 'Lo and behold, from yesterday:

. . . Sutton insisted Aldrete-Davila was neither arrested nor indicted prior to or after the shooting incident, a statement the Border Patrol agents' union contends is false.
Mexican in Border Patrol Case May Still Face Drug Charges, CNS News, January 26, 2007.

Note that the thread I reference skyrocketed to 50 replies. Apparently, the "he's lying," "he's advocating," "he's a shill" gambits are wearing thin.

[1rudeboy]

It provides an entertaining counterpoint to your side's claim that the verdict is certain proof of guilt.

And provides an interesting insight to your ignorance of the law. Apart from the fact that the O.J. case was a State case (as is the Duke case), meaning that there is a qualitative (and quantitative) difference between District Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys, a guilty verdict simply means that a jury found the charges to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, if you want "certain proof" of guilt, you should try the Cuban court system.