I knew a pretty decent defence lawyer who was also a good poker player. He tried to base his poker strategy mainly on stealing blinds and trying to read the opponent on being played back. He also read a lot of "body language reading" books etc to try and work out if witnesses at trials were lying. Though I'm not sure what good he thought that would do. Another friend said he decided criminal law wasn't for him, when, during a case it was obvious that, the prosecutor was lying, the police were lying, the accused and defence witnesses were lying and he wasn't even sure about the Sheriff.....
Anyway, on the topic, the concept of a trial (not in Scotland) is that massive variations in evidence lead to a binary guilty/not guilty. From "ironcast" dna and ten witnesses plus cc cameras to, what I suspect might be the majority, the police think this person commited a crime and have various bits and pieces of evidence and witnesses. So someone innocent and someone guilty can be put on trial with very similar evidence. Now a judge has seen this all before, many times, so does he apply "beyond reasonable doubt" the same way a jury would? I suspect not.










) .
. Second time we finished in near darkness and about 12 beers deep...
