This is a great post, so I wanted to quote the whole thing

. And, perhaps add that as Brady v. Md has continued to be developed, the prosecution doesn't have the same advantage they once did. That is, the prosecution has a DUTY to discover, and disclose, all exculpatory evidence to a defendant, including impeachment evidence. And certainly, the conviction standard in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt), is greatly weighted towards the accused (it is by clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance in civil cases, both easier standards to achieve).
The only area where the prosecution still has a considerable advantage is in an indictment since, 1) the process is secret, 2) the defendant may not even know the process is going on, much less have any rights with respect to the process, and 3) all manner of evidence (including triple hearsay) is presented and considered. There's a saying in the legal community that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich. But that's not really true of course. Grand juries are just regular folk like the petit juries and can and do think for themselves.
And "accused" only exists in theory in the constitution. JVS is not accused of SF's murder and no one in LE or the legal community uses that term when there is this amount of evidence. Not even in the courtroom. The prosecution in every courtroom says, "The evidence shows that the Defendant IS GUILTY of murder," not "the accused" or "may be guilty."
Really good post. Go Steelers

.