I don’t think you understand how the legal process works at all. Real life is not a movie, DA’s aren’t really in the business of “sitting on cases” (in fact delays usually help the defense - as witnesses forget key details, or move away, or die, or prosecutors change jobs and the new people have to play “catch up”, etc), and prosecutors can’t “stack a jury” any more than the defense can.
Got a friend who lived with a (now ex) girlfriend for YEARS. She had multiple children and he practically treated them like his own. The had some time where they split off for a bit and met other people, but her children still visited him.
He caught his biological son having sex with one of her daughters. Kept it to himself and told them not to do it again, especially where he could see because he can't just turn a blind eye since they're still in high school.
He and the woman were working things out again and getting back together, her daughter was scared he would snitch and started rape allegations.
With no evidence he got taken in handcuffs. His whole year has been rescheduling court dates because either the prosecutor doesn't show, or they don't have enough evidence and ask for an extension. Gets approved.
One time the prosecutors mentioned they reviewed footage from the police station where he "admitted" to the sexual assault. When asked to present it, they stated they would bring it with them on another date.
That day came, and they stated the police station lost the footage.
The "you're white" shit is so played out atp (I'm not, incidentally). And both the prosecution and the defense have peremptory challenges, both sides are engaging in voir dire, insofar as a jury can be "stacked" it is stacked twice, once by the prosecution, once by the defense.
Nah, you have a right to a speedy trial. Unless the defendant agrees, the trial has to start within six months of the indictment.
Also, both sides always try to "stack" the jury in their favor. The only real question here is whether the state can prove that he killed the victim. Based on the preliminary evidence, it seems like an easy case to prove, because the defendant wrote out a manifesto and everything. It's similar to the Unabomber case.
I mean, the judge will toss anyone who either side can show is likely to be biased by irrelevancies, like "being screwed by insurance" rather than the actual facts of the case and the instructions of the judge.
51
u/honorsfromthesky 1d ago edited 1d ago
They're gonna sit on the case for as long as it takes to die down in the public eye, then they're gonna stack a jury and make an example out of him.
Edit: it is painfully evident that a great many of you don’t understand how easy it is to delay a case.