How exactly do you propose to prove something (planting evidence) didn't happen?
Maybe I have too low expectation about USA interface between law enforcement and judiciary, but here in Poland there were many high-profile cases of misconduct of public prosecutors that colluded with the police. The only "proven" cases were about purposefuly destroying evidence: breaking CDs that held incriminating recordings, wiping weapons to remove fingerprints, agreeing to single version of testimony etc. They used procedural quirks to prevent defence from challenging those "mishaps" (like in one high-profile case with broken CD, they argued defence-held copy cannot be submitted, because of continuous custody requirements). Cases with planted evidence were always he-said-she-said, because when police writes a search report where they said you had something, then you have no way to challenge that.
May I add, fraud around those arrest/search reports (however they're called it English) is rampant. It starts with simple things, like notifying the subject about right to attorney. They just tick a box that you declined to summon attorney, and you have no way to challenge that, other than refusing to sign the paper, act of which carries no value.
We're deep, deep into speculation here. I'd wager that as the profile of the case goes up, so too does the dilligence and carefulness of the evidence chain of custody.
They're often not technically pro-bono. Clarke, for example, gets paid by the government, because they have a vested interest in not having cases overturned on appeal due to insufficient counsel.
> Clarke would probably not want anyone to feel indebted to her. In fact, after the Smith case, she returned the $82,944 fee the state paid her, saying that other indigent defendants could use it more.
this will potentially be a self-defense case. since the shooter had chronic back pain, he could argue that shooting the ceo who denied his healthcare was his only means of protecting himself
That's not how criminal trials work. There are no free speech rights in court. Defendants can't just argue whatever they want. Judges have wide latitude to prohibit certain defenses and generally ban both the prosecution and defense from mentioning legally irrelevant points. Self defense is clearly codified under NY state law and this case doesn't even come close to meeting that standard.
Lawyers tripping over each other to have their names associated with a potentially historic case. Remember how the Kardashian family originally became famous and some of them are billionaires now.
> Simpson was the best man at Kardashian and Kris Houghton's wedding in 1978.
> Following the June 12, 1994, murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, Simpson stayed in Kardashian's house to avoid the media. Kardashian was the man seen carrying Simpson's garment bag the day that Simpson flew back from Chicago. Prosecutors speculated that the bag may have contained Simpson's bloody clothes or the murder weapon.
> As one of Simpson's lawyers and a member of the defense "Dream Team", Kardashian could not be compelled or subpoenaed to testify against Simpson in the case, which included Simpson's past history and behavior with his ex-wife Nicole, and as to the contents of Simpson's garment bag.
