I doubt any amount of money spent on lawyers or expert witnesses could have changed the outcome. It's simply not a winnable case based on the facts and the law. The only way to change the outcome would be to coach the hoodrat niggers in the jury pool to act impartial during questioning.
I'd bet anything he, with the support of his disgusting parents, loudly and ignorantly refused to entertain even the possibility of taking a plea deal multiple times.
There's been (for women, who courts GREATLY favor, but still) clear-cut cases of obvious first-degree murder where they get off with two years, plus chance of early parole. A good lawyer wouldn't theorize that the victim attacked his client's knife using the victim's chest.
Then again, a GREAT lawyer may purposefully fumble the case ridiculously, to get the public riled up, and force a political pardoning situation for a clearly guilty person.
I doubt any amount of money spent on lawyers or expert witnesses could have changed the outcome. It's simply not a winnable case based on the facts and the law. The only way to change the outcome would be to coach the hoodrat niggers in the jury pool to act impartial during questioning.
A more honest and competent lawyer might have convinced the murderer to plead guilty in exchange for 25 or 30 years instead of 35.
The feral murder machine should have been executed anyway.
I'd bet anything he, with the support of his disgusting parents, loudly and ignorantly refused to entertain even the possibility of taking a plea deal multiple times.
There's been (for women, who courts GREATLY favor, but still) clear-cut cases of obvious first-degree murder where they get off with two years, plus chance of early parole. A good lawyer wouldn't theorize that the victim attacked his client's knife using the victim's chest.
Then again, a GREAT lawyer may purposefully fumble the case ridiculously, to get the public riled up, and force a political pardoning situation for a clearly guilty person.