Consider the politicians' defence when accused of a crime....
I haven't been convicted. They know, proving a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is extremely difficult.
Consider Hillary Clinton receiving tens of thousands of dollars from Marc Rich's family when President Clinton was giving Marc Rich an unprecedented Presidential Pardon and the refrain from the left was, "You can't prove it was quid pro quo." Does anyone really have any doubt.
Lois Lerner sits and smirks as she pleads the fifth in front of Congress. That's what mafia dons and IRS managers do to avoid incriminating statements or committing perjury. But, the prosecutors can't come up with enough to even file a charge.
The defense has it easy because you are politically motivated to assume the guilt of your political enemies?
You actually typed that?
Does anyone really doubt O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goodman. I don't think so. Even those who were cheering his acquittal were cheering what they saw as equal treatment under the law for a rich black guy.
The amount of white people who think he's guilty = the amount of black people who think he's innocent. There's that.
There's also the many blunders by which the police and prosecutors sabotaged their case: mishandling of blood evidence taken at the scene, asking him to try the glove on, on the stand, etc etc etc. The trial was quite an abnormal one.
It's also interesting that you picked a trial where all the normal rules are reversed. OJ was rich. He could afford a team of defense attorneys. Usually, it's just one lone defender deliberately underfunded by the state against a prosecutor, with a second seat attorney, and with an office staff who can research issues virtually as they arise - the second seat just needs to step out of the courtroom and call them. Meanwhile, that lone defender has to spend 8 hours in court, then 8+ hours back in the office preparing for the next day.
They can simply subpeona what they please and back it up with police force, but the defense has to ask the judge to issue a subpeona. The police can
just try harder to find a witness the prosecution wants. The police or prosecutor can try to talk defense witnesses out. The prosecutor can threaten to bring charges against any defense witness if it has any grounds, even slight; then the judge appoints an attorney for the witness, and that attorney wisely tells the witness to take the 5th and not testify in the case. On and on and on the list goes.
Defense attorneys have it made. In our small city, a man came to down to assassinate a Libyan student for Khadaffi. He was caught. He confessed. He did it. He shot the man in the head but the man lived.
He was caught. He was identified. He confessed. But, he got off of an attempted murder charge. Why? The defense said he was an idiot who thought he was working for the CIA. Being a defense attorney is much easier, and makes better money, than being a prosecutor.
That sounds like one of the tiniest fraction of cases in which the insanity defense actually worked. . It almost always fails because jurors wrongly believe that it means the defendant will simply go free.
In other words, you lied about what actually happened. "He's an idiot" isn't actually a defense.
I'm not sure why you're so mad at the defense. Shouldn't you be mad at the jurors, whom you are obviously so much smarter than that you don't even need to hear all the evidence? If only they'd violated their oath and called you up for your opinion....
Anyway...I do finally note that the people saying the defense have it easy seem to uniformly be people with no legal experience themselves, let alone experience on either side of the criminal law.....even "second hand experience". Some of them also seem to be telling lies to justify their position.
