Were you there? Did you talk to the jurors?
Did you?
You throw out BS about how the evidence was weak, and you know how prosecutors act, and yet you have no first hand knowledge of anything and have never practiced law, much less as a prosecutor. I'd say that completely prohibits you from reaching the opinion you did.
I'm "prohibited" from reaching an opinion? How amusing.
I never said whether I have or haven't practiced law, because answering your demand either way is to stoop to the credential contest you're trying to make it. You just keep grasping at straws in the hope of a good ad hominem broadside.
Something tells me you got so hacked off about what I said re: prosecutors that you couldn't be objective and simply ignore what as far as you know could be the opinion of some gap toothed redneck with a bias against prosecutors because of what happened to his 2nd cousin.
Now, if you want to go back and forth on what I orginally said, pay attention I'm sidetracking from the Padilla case here, you and I both know that inflammatory evidence can be admitted unless the defense moves to challenge it. They don't always move to challenge it and when they do they don't always succeed. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that "inflammatory" photos can be admitted if they show the conditions of the victim's bodies, corroborate testimony, or what have you. Just for example. You could sail a pretty big ship thru that loophole, eh. Seeing as you like so much to win arguments on this forum, are you telling me you would never ever exploit that?
So where was I. In other words, if I'm just a know nothing as you keep asserting, then you are free to give my opinions all the attention they merit (hence, zero).
Problem is, when I state something, you take one of two courses... either you attack the messenger (ad hominem attack, assault on credentials) or you just say the equivalent of 'nyah nyah *that's* not a fact, *I* have all the facts.'
Was I on guard duty where Padilla was being held? Was I a juror? Did I try his case? Did I defend him in court? It doesn't matter, neither did you. If anybody on here was, they ain't sayin. And if they did, either of us could just say well I don't believe you, if we didn't like what was said.
Somebody brings in opinions on the case, written by a law professor, and you dismiss them. The clear implication is that no law professor could know more than you. Hey, you're the one started playing the credentials game, at least have some consistency will you?
I will admit that I respect your tenacity, though I disagree heartily with you on most of what we've talked about so far. I could just go on to say "OK Stage 2, you win", but I doubt you'd enjoy that.
But, this could go continue to go back and forth and still accomplish nothing. I think we've made our positions pretty clear. From this point on I can only agree to disagree.