Prosecutors say a lot of things. For instance, they said he shot the victim. Where is the evidence that he shot the victim? Where is the evidence that he pro

Prosecutors say a lot of things. For instance, they said he shot the victim. Where is the evidence that he shot the victim? Where is the evidence that he provided the weapon? These are the questions we should remain focused on when trying to ascertain guilt or innocence. Not what the prosecutor said. (Prosecutors have in-built incentives to persuade you to one side.) Nor, indeed, should we even focus too much on what the defendant said. (He could have been tortured, or he could just be lying.) Do you have evidence or not? If not, gtfo. Now in this case, the prosecutor hid evidence. And that's what complicates everything. When the prosecutors are willing to go to those lengths to cover their untruths, then there is little that can be done to check that lack of integrity given the structure of the current system. That's certainly a problem. But the idea is that if we focus on evidence we won't go wrong.