[STAGE 2]

What RR and Stage2 fail to disclose is that prosecutors are political animals and that most Americans live like an ostrich--our heads are either stuck in the sand or up our butts most of the time when it comes to the reality of how things are all around us.

I'm not quite sure what this is other than a fallacious argument. Sure there have been examples of bad prosecutors, but they are the very limited exception and not the rule. The people that I have worked with were stand up folks who were doing a job that they (mostly) loved because they wanted to see justice done. This idea, that seems to be very very prevalent on boards like this, that all prosecutors are chomping at the bit to have another notch on their briefcase regardless of whether they think the person is innocent or not. Thats pure bunk.

That statement shows that someone doesn't understand the issue as many folks have pointed out. If you are tried, there is some doubt as to legit nature of your action. You haven't pulled off a definitional good shoot - now have you?

Very true, however without dragging another discussion into this one, the factors that RR listed are not sufficient to create the type of doubt that is necessary to be charged. If I shoot someone and have a trigger job on my gun, that alone isn't going to get me charged. If I shoot someone with reloads that alone isn't going to get me charged. If I have both, that alone isn't sufficient to get me charged.

At trial, there is a mountain of evidence from simulations that appearance factors - clothes, race, age, blah, blah - and weapons issues influence juries. It is also clear from legal experts here and other ones, that such processes don't make 'case law'.

Not true at all. There are plenty of these issues that present themselves in appellate cases as well as ways of finding convictions from cases that don't make it to the appellate level.

In fact, the application of such implicit biases is just now being picked up in terms of racial bias and being argued in court. It's a pretty new area.

The inability of some folks to understand this point is rather stunning and shows how biases work.

I'd say just the opposite. That the inability of people who work with the justice system to understand what it takes to get a conviction is rather stunning.

BTW, if Mas or Marty have expertise and try to use it to make a living - what's wrong with that? I have expertise and try to sell it honestly. When I've testified, I've given my evaluation and if the lawyer doesn't like it - too bad.

Nothing at all. However there also isn't anything wrong with people making legitimate objections to the information they present.