.jpg)
Here's three paragraphs lifted from the story of the murder of a guy who spent 16 years in prison for robbery, got out, fathered a child, and helped the mom of that child shoot up heroin:
[The prosecutor] had a difficult case: no witnesses to the 4 a.m. shooting that awoke many in the Arbor apartments, no recovery of the weapon and no forensic evidence that could place [the defendant] at [the victim's] window.
Critical prosecution witnesses either admitted they lied to police or had such credibility problems some in the courtroom laughed.
On the stand, [a prosecution witness who was] a young construction worker from Dallas, addressed [the prosecutor] as “bro,” referred to the victim with a racial slur, and used a vulgar expression several dozen times as he talked about buying meth and marijuana from [the defendant], who he called “homeboy” and who sat expressionless at the defense table.
And that's just the beginning.
It's understandable that the jury had a reasonable doubt. Who wouldn't? My question is how didn't the prosecutor have that same doubt? How does he know the defendant was guilty? Why use questionable evidence to try and convict a man in the first place?
