I know people get hostile when OJ is mentioned however, my opinion is the same as it was 10 years ago. The juries got it right: OJ more than likely did it (civil trial) and the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof (criminal trial). IMO the prosecution was so interested in their TV images and future contracts that they just plain blew what could have been a slam dunk case.
It now seems that in their ardor to get a conviction the prosecutors in the Peterson case are blowing it. The defense is not looking for a mis-trial that would give the prosecution a chance to start over on a better foot. I have heard some commentators say that that may be what the prosecution wants, which is the basis for the defense to move to drop the case with prejudice -- no second chance.
It seems to me that in high profile cases the attorneys attack procedures rather than evidence. What say you attorneys, real and shithouse?
Threaded Mode
