Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Court Refused to Let Man Argue Obvious Defense at Trial" video.

Yes, I'm not really sure how else you serve justice if you don't send it for a new trial with a new judge. The only other reasonable alternative would be to set aside the conviction completely, but I do think that a mistrial is probably the correct remedy.
11
@nealreiersen6823 If it's so important why did it take so long for QI to become a thing and why was it the result of a court ruling and not something that was passed as legislation? It seems to me that if it's that important that it would have been done through legislation much earlier.
7
@mpmansell No, they're not. You're not typically subjected to prison or execution for losing the family court proceedings. It does happen, but it's not anywhere near as common as with criminal cases where the question is ultimately whether or not the state has met the burden of proof to have you tossed in prison.
3
It's not surprising, nobody wants to think that they're trying to put an innocent person in prison. Nor do they want to think that they have. If they're gathering evidence on somebody, they will quickly reconcile that issue by just considering them guilty and it can be incredibly hard to change that mindset if more evidence comes to light that points to something else. A good prosecutor and good cops will recognize when they're trying to make the evidence fit their assumptions and knock it off, but often times they don't and if the judge and jury don't pick up on that you can get people railroaded.
2
@username4835 Judicial immunity definitely exists for a reason, but in cases like this it shouldn't apply. I'm not sure how you have a fair trial if the defense isn't allowed to use theories and arguments that are supported by some level of evidence.
1