> This, to me, seems to be the hurdle to clear. These cases are complex and have lots of evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court essentially said that the bite mark

> This, to me, seems to be the hurdle to clear. These cases are complex and have lots of evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court essentially said that the bite mark evidence in his case is not needed to convict him. I'm concerned that a supreme court of all courts justify a ruling with “would likely have been” reasoning. Like, really? How about we throw that out of the window, and let a court decide whether it's enough evidence instead of guessing what a court would've done in that situation??