6 ms·
I have to believe, based not only on this case but on extensive reporting from folks like Radley Balko, that manipulation or outright omission of exculpatory ev
by jMyles 5y ago
I have to believe, based not only on this case but on extensive reporting from folks like Radley Balko, that manipulation or outright omission of exculpatory evidence is much more common than is generally believed.
Even here, in this incredible high-profile case, they apparently felt confident enough to give it a try.
Imagine now how easy it must be for them to do it to poor, mostly Black defendants who are relying on a public defender, when they don't have a (for better or worse) rabid political wing watching their every move, and when there are no screenshots of their laptop circulating the internet.
This is a concentrated drop of shame in the already shameful lake of fake justice.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoThese prosecutors are the rabid political wing.
- courtwatcher 5y agoThat's what I think the anti-Rittenhouse side doesn't see. This trial is a perfect example of DAs getting caught doing shady things and even a sympathetic judge doesn't have the courage to throw the case out. It's an amazing example of how rotted justice in America is. But since it doesn't fit into the racial-power narrative it's ignored. This is the case that could teach middle America that their justice system is broken and needs reform. Guilty or innocent, the DA has done so much BS that the case should have been thrown out w/ prejudice [1] a long time ago. [1] mistrial w/ prejudice means Rittenhouse get's off. The argument for prejudice is that the prosecution is making too many serious violations for the mistakes to be innocent. And if they're not innocent mistakes, then prejudice attaches.