From a purely theoretical standpoint, even a guilty person is entitled under our system to force the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution can't do it, then the defendant is not guilty, regardless of the fact that he committed the crime.
Since that is the case, the accused is entitled to a vigorous defense, which includes attacking the credibility of prosecution witnesses. That's the way it is, and it's not completely fair to attack the lawyers who are doing the job they are hired to do.
There is one bit of consolation to all this. It is a big gamble for the guilty person to demand a trial. If he is found guilty, he will almost certainly get a much tougher sentence than if he had plea bargained.
Most ethical defense attorneys will advise their client of that fact, which is one reason that 99% of clients plead guilty without a trial.
Well your statement sez' it all... Just because the prosecution was not strong enough for some smartalec shyster with some misc. tricks up his sleeve, than it is just a OK for him to get his client scottfree just because the prosecution was incompetent or not strong enough.Is this what you are implying?If it is, you ought to be ashamed of yourself!
Another words no morals, no pride, no shame, no pride just "SHOW ME THE MONEY"...is this we have sunk to? Samanthas life did not amount to a hill of beans,if the prosecution case is not strong enough...NOT GUILTY!