Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps
Here is the part I don't understand about people whining and bitching about this stuff. From my vague understanding of the law these cases go to court, where evidence is presented (that we may not even know about yet), a jury of people just like you and me then spends days, weeks or even months going over this information and coming up with a verdict.
So why the hell do some people think they know better than those who have spent days, weeks or months going over ALL the evidence?
PS: Please correct me if I'm wrong on how our legal system works.
|
No you're right. The problem is that there's a potential conflict of interest. The jury doesn't have access to the news coverage and what not that we do. They only have to go on what the prosecuting attorney (local district attorney) presents to them as evidence.
It is in a local DA's best interest to be on the police's good side as you will need them for future cases and their cooperation so people believe that in a lot of these cases, prosecutor's don't really bother showing compelling evidence in an effort that the jury will decline an indictment.
An easy way to solve that problem is to have special prosecutors come in for cases where local law enforcement is involved so that the conflict of interest is eliminated.
In fact NY is debating that very idea as a result of this,
http://www.nhregister.com/general-ne...al-prosecutors