I don't know if it aggravates anyone else or not, but I'm so tired of attorneys being dismissive of circumstantial evidence when the USSC has said definitively it carries as much powerful weight, and even more so in many cases than direct evidence testimony.
That is why CE cases are the least likely cases to ever be overturned on appeal.
Most cases ARE CE cases. We just had two big trials which were based on CE evidence. Daron Wint was convicted, and sentenced to LWOP. Charles Merritt was convicted, and the jury recommended he be sentenced to death.
Imo, defense attorneys are really scared to death of CE cases for they know juries convicted most defendants far more often on CE than strictly direct evidence cases. It's a ploy used by DTs meant to deceive. Imo
Imo, They actually prefer direct evidence cases because they can argue the eye witnesses can be wrong.
I just wish they would all be honest for a change.
It's like all defense attorneys have this same statement tattooed on their forehead so they make sure to always say it. They constantly regurgitated the same old tired line ad nauseam.
Yet time, and time again juries do NOT believe their dismissive spiel about the weight CE carries.
It also is aggravating the media seems to always says a former prosecutor when what they should have just said they asked a defense attorney instead of being deceptive by stating former prosecutor.
McGee in the Merritt case was also a former prosecutor for 20 years, and since being a defense attorney he now poo poos CE when at one time he would clearly say it carries much weight.
Why can't they ever go to an acting prosecutor in another jurisdiction who is not over the case for their opinion?
Imo, they don't because most of the media seems to be pro defense as we have seen in many high profile cases lately.
Sorry for venting, but I'm just so tired of the deception being spun by DTs about CE cases.
Jmho