...a vigorous defense...

William Sharp. 1954

What does "...a vigorous defense..." mean?

I have heard the term 'vigorous defense' as a right of all defendants,

but cannot find an actual Constitutional or Bill of Rights affirmation and definition.

Even so, here is my layman's point of view.

There seems to be an assumption that because of the phrase 'a vigorous defense',

defense lawyers should try to have their defendant found 'not-guilty', even when guilty.

I heartily disagree.

In my layman-mind, 'a vigorous defense' should mean a real dedication to 'due process',

yet should never advocate the guilty going unconvicted and unpunished.

Finding the guilty - 'not guilty'; seems outside the spirit and letter of the US Constitution.

And it is absolutely a perversion of justice in God's eyes -the Final Judge of all people.

More below...

prekopalnicmarko.si

Blood splatter debates confuse me.

How is there any debate for something that is supposedly scientific?

If one party, either prosecution or the defense, can find an expert to disagree

with the findings of the other, this tells me:

> Blood spatter isn't a real science, or

>One of the 'experts' is fraudulent and should lose their job

and their reputation in the judicial community.

>Or one 'expert' is incompetent; should be censured and be required to have

additional training before being allowed to work again.

And juries should have the right to petition for a review

and possible revocation of the losing expert's credentials.

In one crime show on TV, the prosecution's blood spatter 'expert'

was found to be completely untrained.

In true science, everyone ought to say the same thing when reviewing the same evidence.