(12-14-2023, 09:41 AM)Sneakers Wrote:

(12-13-2023, 11:36 PM)mikesez Wrote: If you could read, you'd know I never said they were.  The evidence is literally the video and audio we have of him committing crimes.  The prosecution will explain how the audio and the video violate various statutes.  The defense will attempt to undermine that explanation.

You apparently have no understanding of the criminal trial process here in the U.S.  If all the prosecution has to do is "explain" violation of statutes, why is there a defense, or even a trial?

Again, NOTHING the prosecution (or defense) says is EVIDENCE.  Opening statements allow the parties to outline their respective cases and explain what they intend to prove.  Closing arguments allow them to summarize the evidence and what conclusions can be drawn from said evidence.  Furthermore, all legal instructions come from the judge.  The jury then decides if the actual EVIDENCE presented (documents, recordings, testimony, etc.) is sufficient to prove guilt.

We could be here all day.  I intend to keep my explanations brief for once.  They are not wrong.  Yours are not wrong either.  There are volumes written about what evidence is admissible and not and how the judges decide.  The prosecution and defense can present pretty much any argument or evidence they want to the judge but after that the judge decides what the jury gets to hear.

But you and me as private citizens, not on the jury, are free to look at the evidence that is publicly available, and the statutes, and come to our own conclusion.

---