It is one of the major disadvantages of a common law system (as opposed to statutory law, like the French legal system). Because things are so heavily influenc

It is one of the major disadvantages of a common law system (as opposed to statutory law, like the French legal system). Because things are so heavily influenced by precedent, until there has been a legal opinion it is very unclear what the law actually is. Even if there is a statute on the books that is very unambiguous that doesn't mean that a judge will always be compelled to follow it. Not only that but because of the difference between binding vs persuasive opinion two different courts might even (legitimately) make opposing rulings. This means that you can't really rely on a certain ruling in many causes, and if you _are_ convicted based on a judge's interpretation of the law you will have to wait for the appeals process. Assuming your appeal is even taken up you might need to wait months or years and spend a large fortune on legal bills. In the mean time you might have the penalties for "breaking" the law applied to you anyway. After 4 years of court costs and expulsion from the US it won't console you much that they will now let you back in, considering the opportunities you may have lost while all this was going on. Hence the 'probably' and the 'maybe'. IANAL etc.