I understand the concept of a vigorous defense. I agree even Casey is deserving of that defense. The state should have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt Casey is guilty. However, it feels very wrong to me that part, if not all, of Casey's defense is putting someone on trial who has not been accused of any crime. Casey doesn't even have to testify in her own defense yet they can accuse George of molesting his daughter and Kronk of being morally bankrupt. The defense doesn't even have to prove George or Kronk guilty of anything, they only have to raise the issue. End of rant. JMO
Thank you for spending the time watching the trial with me today and allowing me to participate in the dialog.