[ExI] The Dogs of Immortality

[Lee Corbin]

Olga writes

> But consider this: Let's just imagine that Woody Allen had been accused of 
> murdering Mia Farrow, and a major piece of evidence had been found by a 
> black detective. And let's say this black detective goes on the witness 
> stand and he's asked if he ever referred to Jews as "kikes." He says no, 
> never. Then a tape is discovered in which we find out the detective is a 
> member of some racist black group that considers Jews not just kikes but 
> monsters.

Well, hell yes!  Who would give a damn about the murdered
woman in that case?  People as well as our legal system, understand
priorities.

> The case would have been lost. The fact that jurors almost always 
> acquit when the prosecution's star witness is found to be lying on the 
> witness stand was not made clear to Americans by the media.

No crime, even some terrible, terrible crime against all humanity
could be prosecuted if some witness did the unspeakably wrong
of *lying*.  Far better that thousands or millions go free than
that this *lying* be overlooked.

But what I don't understand is this.  Usually when the jury reaches
the wrong verdict, as they did in the Rodney King case against
the police officers--- can you believe it, in the first trial the jury
acquited the police officers?  --- the government simply retries the
case in another jurisdiction.  So why wasn't O. J. Simpson tried
again for, oh, violating someone's civil rights, or engaging in a
conspiracy, or, (when the government gets desperate) "attempting
to evade a guilty verdict", or whatever it takes to convict?

Lee