Imagine a scenario of this river stabbing trial with zero video evidence. Like it's 1999 and no cameras were immediately available. This would be a FAR different trial and what i think i'm saying is, a potentially MUCH different verdict.
Again, your responses are very complete and address every single thing i can think of asking, and then some.
It's funny, too, in that regard. not ha-ha funny, I suppose. The younger DAs are supervised by older DAs. (duh) It's a excruciating difference in world outlook. Those guys grew up in a world (late 80s-90s) where it was like the Salem witch trials. Everyone was guilty of everything, max prison sentences, jury pools full of (let's face it, racist) police loving, crime fearing, silent generation whites. No video. No recordings. No CSI. The juries were on your side, the judges certainly were on your side, and if you said someone was guilty, he was. Drugs= prison. No diversion. No mental health courts. Today, those same supervisors expect those same results from the people they supervise, and just can't grip the face of 2020s america. The opposite end of that is anarchist DAs who let all criminals go, with expected results, but there is a medium to be had.
It's by far the most challenging time in the history of the human existence to convict someone of a crime (maybe 2021-22 was the peak), and it
should be that way. There's a lotttttttttttttttttttttttttt of folks who went to prison in "good old days" who, in my opinion, didn't get a fair shake by modern standards. A lot of this is new stuff is a pain in my ass, but if I was ever on the wrong end of a charge, I'd want that protection.
Eyewitnesses are absolute garbage. I avoid that if I can help it. It's 10x easier to play videos, ping phones, etc. All that's left then is the behind the doors cases like domestic violence, or sexual assault, crimes against kids, etc. And those will always be a challenge to prove. From now until forever.
So like in this case, when it's first brought in, it's "staffed" by a panel of homicide attorneys. Like a mini jury. I can see in this case, there would be no way we'd all agree. It gets extremely testy sometimes, I've seen people yell at each other. And these are big decisions, so it should be. I've seen a whole group of attorneys refuse to try a case because they don't believe the evidence proves the charge, but another attorney who sees it differently isn't far away. Cops can want us to charge X, and if we can't it creates a huge political problem behind closed doors.
But knowing what I know about this case, I'd punt and do a half-ass job in front of a grand jury so I could wipe my hands of it. I don't like this case. I'm interested to see the verdict.
