If you’ve been on a jury, you’ll understand evidence in a trial. Each attorney tells you what they think the evidence will prove. However, the evidence usually needs a lot of prop-up support by the attorneys to make any sense at all.
The article last week about the tax evasion trial explained the one-sided assumption of what the evidence showed.
I was there and I saw the evidence differently. In closing argument, the government explained what the witnesses had proven, when in fact they had never said such things. Did the jury notice?