> I ended up trying a case where the accused had allegedly gone to the victim's home, knocked on the door, then barged in and punched the victim a few times whe

> I ended up trying a case where the accused had allegedly gone to the victim's home, knocked on the door, then barged in and punched the victim a few times when he answered the door. Hospital records and photos meant no-one disputed the victim had been punched. But what evidence was there that the accused was the attacker? Only the eyewitness testimony of the accused and his wife. Because we're not talking about an abstract situation of sans evidence accusations, and because that's already a problem -- even without eyewitness testimony being admissible. We're talking about the different rates of bad things we can have in real compromises we can enact for real situations: if you go so far towards never convicting the innocent that you never convict violent home invasions, society will break down. You can think that's justice, I was just connecting the choice with the outcome.