How was it? Is it true that a lot of republicans would vote for him. Was he a good governor?

When you present a case of a serious crime in which the accused maintains their innocence, and you convict them with circumstantial evidence, don't you get the doubt that maybe you convicted an innocent person? How do you deal with that?

This isn’t an attack, just a legitimate question. I understand that the law is complicated and many times, unless you have a time machine, it’s impossible to know what really happened.

I've seen several true crime stories about teenagers who have committed crimes against members of their own family, like killing a parent, sibling, or grandparent. I notice that often, the parents who survive tend to disown their kids. I don't know why, I feel like this is wrong, maybe I'm judging the victims, but I feel like it's wrong.

I would like to ask very experienced lawyers, or those who have dealt with very experienced lawyers. Before the AEDPA (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act) came into effect in 1996, which significantly limits the habeas corpus rights of defendants, was it more common for a federal judge or federal circuit court to have discretion to overturn a potentially unfair verdict against a client? Was it more feasible to prove actual innocence in a post-conviction relief petition? Nowadays, we see many cases of people being exonerated decades later, partly because it is so difficult to argue actual innocence—was this easier before this law was passed?

There's a type of trial that always catches my attention. They're murder cases where you have a defendant who maintains their innocence, and both the defense lawyer and the prosecutor give you a believable version of what happened — the lawyer trying to get their client acquitted and telling a credible story about why their client didn’t commit the murder, and the prosecutor trying for a conviction and also telling a believable, though not definitive, story about why the defendant did it. The fact is that the jury's verdict is almost always guilty, and if you think about it, the people following the case also usually believe the defendant is guilty. With your vast experience (I know these cases aren’t typical or common), do you think there’s a tendency for juries to ignore reasonable doubt and side with the prosecutor? Like the de facto standard is: The defense has to prove absolutely (not just reasonable doubt, absolutely) that the accused is not guilty, while for the prosecution it's enough to leave even the tiniest doubt; if the defense doesn’t prove the opposite absolutely, not even like Sherlock Holmes, then the person is guilty as hell.

Hypothetical situation: A 14-year-old boy from Florida kills his classmate, confesses it to his mother, who is a Spanish citizen, and flees with him to Spain before the police find out. In Spain, a minor can never be tried as an adult, while in Florida it's usual for murder cases. Would Spain extradite the minor to the USA? Would they try him in Spain to ensure he is rehabilitated? Or could they make it a condition for the USA that the minor be tried as a minor and not as an adult?

I am reposting this but rephrasing it because maybe the way I uploaded it a moment ago could have been accusatory toward the state of Idaho, which was not my intention, I apologize

Is this case of murder trial, an example of corruption and prosecution misconduct

It occured in Idaho, Blaine County

It was a small town in a small county where the murder happened, the prosecutor who handled the case knew the victims (a married couple), and the accused and convicted was their teenage daughter. If I'm not mistaken, this is already a conflict of interest, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

During the trial, the prosecutor brought in the testimony of an inmate who was held in the county jail with the girl, to testify that the girl had accidentally confessed to the murders. But the defense brought in another inmate who also shared a cell with both of them, who testified that she heard the other inmate brag about having gotten a reduced sentence in exchange for lying to convict the girl. If that's true, it should be illegal, but it wasn't investigated.

The girl, who was a minor, was housed with adult women while waiting for the trial (about two years). I also think this is illegal and should invalidate the testimony of any of those women.

These are the main elements that worry me; if I'm wrong, please correct me.

This question is directed to: 1- Licensed attorneys in Idaho who have practiced criminal defense in that state. 2- People who have been tried in that state or their family members.

I have recently become very interested in a murder case that happened in Idaho, specifically in Blaine County just over 20 years ago, about which I have doubts regarding the verdict. The fact is that, although the case resulted in a conviction, reading a lot about the trial, I noticed several things that seemed like misconduct by the prosecution or even crimes committed by them. (I am not a lawyer)

So, in your experience, is the Idaho justice system corrupt? Even compared to other states?

I have tried to get access to an specific case discussion in 2005 using the wayback machine, Courttv.com Message Boards but when I click it, the wayback doesnt have it archive it, is there some old school court tv fan that can get me access to the entire old forum discussion?