• ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 hours ago

    That whole “a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich” was when you could pull your jurors out of a citizen pool that didn’t walk in already believing you were lying through your fucking teeth.

    But then they pulled the mask off, and let us all see how they are using the courts for vindictive prosecution and political harassment.

    Looks like the ham sammich days are ending, lol.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It could be that the software isn’t accurate enough to be evidence on its own. Similar to how identifying someone in a lineup is notoriously inaccurate. They may be able to use it for probably cause in a search warrant, but without other supporting evidence, they may not have a case.

      • klugerama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The article mentions felony charges - it could also or instead be that it was too high a bar (pun intended) to indict when it should have been a misdemeanor vandalism charge.

  • Ranjr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    6 hours ago

    They always bring up that quote about being able to indict a ham sandwich but they never specify the charges.