Believe it or not, despite the police constantly exploiting people's (legal) stupidity, it should not be a crime. > Given the evidence at hand, we probably wou

Believe it or not, despite the police constantly exploiting people's (legal) stupidity, it should not be a crime. > Given the evidence at hand, we probably would have convicted him anyway. The video was the clincher. If the video of his confession, which you know has been edited by the police and prosecutor's office, I would have voted to let him go. You don't know the pressure that was on the guy during that video, you don't know what else the police left out (e.g. one thing is they do is refusing to help someone, or claiming to refuse, until a confession is extracted and signed, then edit out the part where they refused to help, or lied) What if the person lied and confessed because the police threatened not to call an ambulance for someone ? Ironically, this may very well be the reason the "goober" wanted a jury trial in the first place, as people do that thinking it will provide more opportunities for the truth to come out.