I've previously written about there was only a 40% chance OJ killed his ex-wife and Goldman. I've also written about how the arguments on the Clipper chip wasn't convincing.
It also leads to arguments about how arguments on parallel construction is not convincing, those arguments pretty much boil down to the government is being suspiciously secretive and illegally dishonest. I found the arguments on parallel construction to be more convincing than the Clipper chip though, but upon further thought, I'm not longer convinced by current arguments against parallel construction. The defendant still committed the crime (ignoring selective enforcement), it is just that classified information is used as hints to find a different set of evidence. They were proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a very high bar to meet. Or is it a very high bar to meet? The ACLU, the great absolutionists of our time, insist on no death penalty. Because based on the number of people who were exonerated before ever being executed should have instead been sentenced to life imprisonment, who if exonerated, would still be released? Well ignoring that, there is an alarming number of people convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on some circumstantial evidence here, prior relationship there, lack of alibi, and having the same blood type (although thanks to CSI, more exacting and numerous tests are demanded now), and you have a pretty convincing story (which is all it takes). Obviously the proper argument is to find that all murderers were incorrectly convicted and should be retried under stricter procedures. Everyone bemoans that Matthew Keys was convicted by... a jury. We have fallen far, far, below our desired standard for "... ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". My argument about parallel construction is different, the defendants should have access to classified information to prove their innocence if there is a large scale program by the government to prove guilt using classified information. It could give an edge to the defendant to find that one pattern or one bit of evidence that would throw doubt onto the prosecution's case. Because the defendant is not presumed innocent. If there is no doubt as to the prosecution's case, the jury will convict, do not delude yourself otherwise. It's funny how the status quo stays the same when it benefits the government, but suddenly we have a FISA Amendment or a Patriot Act otherwise?