...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 if it has an actual Constitutional or Bill of Rights affirmation.

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

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 either incompetent or fraudulent and should lose their job

and reputation in the judicial community.

>Or they should be censured and required to secure additional training

in that field 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 true science, everyone ought to say the same thing when reviewing the same evidence.