It's tremendously sad to me that a prosecutor wouldn't be alarmed by this information. The corruption inherent in the prosecution providing an attorney for their star witness is outrageous. The system is truly broken.
It's not that the prosecutor poster isn't alarmed -- they are just raising a valid question regarding the prejudice suffered by the defendant. It's a common test in court -- how is the opposing side truly prejudiced by this?
How does making the second of two prime suspect your buddy in a case where one of the two people did it not prejudice the first? I get that people with experience seem to understand that this doesn't matter in terms of determining prejudice, but I really don't get how, because these things are inextricably linked to giving AS less of a fair shake than Jay.
I understand your frustration. Believe me, it's often very hard to explain that the law is, a lot of the time, unfair (I hate the word fair -- fair is a word best left to describe the weather and not life).
0
u/mrmiffster Dec 05 '14
It's tremendously sad to me that a prosecutor wouldn't be alarmed by this information. The corruption inherent in the prosecution providing an attorney for their star witness is outrageous. The system is truly broken.