I know of a case that was overturned partly because of what a judge did in front of the jury. A child testified against the defendant. When she finished her testimony, the judge (N.O. Judge Miriam Waltzer) reportedly gave her a little bag of candy, and a smile. The judge didn't do this b/c she liked the content of the child's testimony, she was just being nice, I think.
It was successfully argued that this action, done in front of the jury, might have suggested to them that the judge (the authority figure) somehow approved of the child's testimony against the defendant, and that this testimony was thought by the judge to be especially good and believable.
Having said that, I agree with the poster who said, essentially, "The son ends too lives, and this father is offended by NECKTIES????" Hello? Two people were slaughtered in their home, and a necktie with a rope on it is deemed unbearably cruel? Come now.
This case has apparently passed the selection committee (being facetious, don't know if there is or isn't such a committee) of Amnesty Int'l. and The Worldwide Liberal Fraternal Organization--people who think that the only issue that has ever had any importance in the entire history of mankind is that some whites have been extremely mean to some black people during some eras. They have decided to make Lawrence Jacobs a cause celebre. Do a google on this D.A.'s name (Paul Connick) and you will find correspondence/coverage to and about him in Swedish, among other things. And you will find heartfelt letters about this case, written by British students. This is one of their fashionable "causes." Just like Mumia Abu Jamal.
And look at the defiant stance of that father in that picture. Maybe he's one of those parents who, when their little darling got in some minor trouble, always assumed it was the teacher or storekeeper or rec center manager who was "picking on" their son. The type of parent who goes down to the school, store, or rec center in high dudgeon, to give that adult "a piece of my mind." That sort of upbringing, in which your parent is always telling you you are the victim of some mean authority figure, can indeed create a monster.
I guess Dad doesn't concede that it was his son who actually murdered the people. But no one seems to deny that they robbed them. Isn't he the least bit ashamed that his son would violently rob someone?