“She may be guilty. But it’s up to the State to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Even based on what I saw I was not the least bit surprised by the verdict. Sometimes as a Prosecutor you know you have to prosecute (usually based upon the heinous nature of the crime) but you just don’t have, and can’t get, the evidence that will convict.”
I disagree with you. The Brian Stowe case in L.A. Is in that boat. The “person of interest” they have in custody does not have enough evidence for them to even charge him yet. That’s an example where the state is in a bad place.
But the circumstantial evidence against Casey is like a giant arrow, and nothing points to anyone else.
Good points. But there are statutes that do permit you to hold someone without charge (i.e. a material witness that may vanish). These are sometimes abused. That is different than being charged with a crime.
And, true. The arrow doesn’t point to anyone else. I couldn’t agree more. You just can’t convict someone because it doesn’t point to anyone else. There is an affirmative burden on the state to prove it is you.
Hi from the idol thread Yalle.