Jeff, the fact that confidential info passes is immaterial. One wrong does not make a right. The Judge instructs the jury on the law, and does not tell them they can disregard the law. There are volumes written on "jury nullification," in essence that the jury can decide that even though the defendant violated the law, the jury can declare, "innocent, because we don't like the law." Lawyers try this in big cases and are often found in contempt, or threatened with contempt, for bringing it up. The key is that if you can get the jury to acquit, double jeopardy prevents a re-trial. In this case, it's not happening. Too obtuse a case for the jury to really go beyond the law.
As for the balance of your post about "slam dunk," who would suggest that? "beyond a reasonable doubt," prevents any case from being a slam dunk. 90%++ of cases are settled before trial. The ones that make it to trial are not slam dunks. Almost every case, if you had to make up odds, would be within the parameters of 60%-40%. That's why pundits are so often wrong.
Members of the public have become more aware of this over the years. Consequently, most of us do have a perception that the government would not bring a case all the way to trial unless they had at least a decent case. It just costs too much time and money to try cases today. Let's face it. If the government had offered Anthony a plea and perhaps a year or two, he probably would have taken it, given he's already served time and survived. |
