Reply #164: Whose job is it to decide on the evidence?

[Moosepoop]

It all comes down to the evidence. Say one of the accused can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he could not have been the perpetrator. That means he is INNOCENT.

And a trial is the place for that evidence to be seen, heard, weighed, judged, and ruled on. That is why we have them.

If a prosecutor believes he has enough evidence to win a case, he's perfectly entitled -- in fact, duty bound -- to pursue it. Even when the defense makes claims to the press that the prosecutor is ignoring evidence.

This whole damn thing is a tempest in a teapot. They're yelling that one of the lawyers went to Nifong's office, and he refused to look at whatever "proof" they say (have they ever said what it was?) that they have.

Big deal.

Send a copy of it by certified or registered mail, so it has to be signed for. Then he's got the "exculpatory evidence", it can be proven that he has it, and if it's really so bang-up surefire positively PROOF that the suspect is innocent, then they can raise a stink legally.
Or hand it to the prosecutor in court. That would be a definite way of making sure he has it, and that it's on record.

But then, they'd lose the press advantage of crying about the mean ol' prosecutor who REFUSES to see their evidence. They'll milk this one till it runs dry, by then they'll be up to something else. It's what they're paid to do.