You are correct. However, at some point, once you have examined the history of those making the experienced judgements, you have to at least concede that the guilty verdicts were not baseless.
There is a difference between weighing a hard choice and choosing incorrectly, and taking a slam-dunk choice and screwing it up.
My argument has been that in this case, the prosecutor did not “obviously” commit evil by prosecuting, the trial didn’t have to be obviously flawed, and the judge was not obviously corrupt.
In other words, I do not believe this was a travesty of justice, even if one disagrees with the verdict.
The Fifth Circuit said this case was primarily about "credibility", but is there anyone, in their right mind, who still finds Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila "credible" (with the possible exception of his own mother)...?? If so, who....?? If Johnny Sutton had to do it over again, do you honestly think that he would still sign that immunity deal with Aldrete-Davila...? No way. OAD has proven that he can't be trusted. And if the prosecutor can't trust him, then that prosecutor has no right to tell a jury to believe him.