Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Let's go over this failure again.That is illogical. Evidence is NOT evidence because it is convincing. It is evidence because it is evidence for whatever someone is trying to prove.
Case in point: A prosecutor wants to prove the defendant is guilty so he presents all the evidence to the jury. Some of the jurors might be convinced that the man is guilty and some won't be convinced but the evidence is still evidence.
The point of evidence is to convince people. Poor evidence will only convince people that cannot reason rationally. So there is good and bad evidence. All you have is bad evidence. "Johnny says so". You yourself admitted that it was not objective evidence. There is such a thing . Forensic evidence in a court is objective evidence. It is far more reliable than eyewitness evidence. That is the weakest evidence allowed in a court of law.
Second a DA does not get to enter into the record any evidence that he pleases. There are hearings before court and the defense can, and often does, get rid of quite a bit of evidence. If the defense is offering evidence that prosecution can do the same. To even show evidence in a court usually requires a judge's permission. Your analogy fails and actually shows that you are incorrect.