Quote

The prosecution has to go with the evidence and the facts and tell the story as it happened. The defense has more creative freedom. All you have to do is look for a defense that works. But it doesn't have to be the truth. Sometimes you get lucky and it is, but sometimes you don't, and either way, it doesn't matter.

That's the whole point of... of prosecutorial discretion in the judicial system. It's finding a just outcome in an individual case.

After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said, 'We think he probably did it. We just didn't think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.'

So my own suspicion is that the attorney has stopped this prosecution because part of her defence was to question legality and that would have brought his advice into the public domain again and there was something fishy about the way in which he said war was legal.

I hate second-guessing other lawyers because I know that I've tried and lost cases, and somebody could sit there and say, 'Should have done it this way,' and they'd have been right.

In reality, those rare few cases with good forensic evidence are the ones that make it to court.

Criminal cases require strategy, and prosecutors should attempt to prove only what can be proved.

The prosecution wants to make sure the process by which the evidence was obtained is not truthfully presented, because, as often as not, that process will raise questions.

There are bombshells that happen in court. Especially when the defense doesn't share discovery of material the way the prosecution does, and so surprises always happen. Things pop out without warning.

They've got him - credible witnesses, documents, heaven knows what else. In all my years as a prosecutor I have never seen such an open-and-shut case.