Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dissention
No one is arguing that, they're simply saying that he is going to be convicted based on the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence. And he will be.
|
Then the people who convict him on that are just as "guilty" because from what I have read California apparently allows for the taking of a defendant's life ONLY when the elements of the crime are established, which they cannot be without some direct evidence, which from what I have seen is lacking in this case. But, such is the plight of a jury - do they do what they want or do they do what the law says - if they were your jury, what would you want them to do
