constraints of time and money. The poorer defendant with the worse lawyer, would lose the case right in front of some backwoods judge based purely on local politics, before the jury even saw the first piece of evidence. I am just saying case law and rules of evidence have gotten too complicated and ambitious, to where the process has been corrupted and the right to a jury trial has been lost. The rules of evidence should be simple and conservative, to where a "judge" can throw out anything out that suits him, but only be forced to do so by a higher court in some set of broad original circumstances which I wouldn’t even know, beyond coerced confessions. Except only the defendant has an extraordinary and unique Constitutional right to show anything he wants in his own defense. You say restoring the asymmetric rights of the accused is not fair to victims of crimes. Life is not fair to victims of crimes, and you cannot chase a utopia. There is not a law of physics or of God which says "If Jack kills Jill, Joe must kill J ack." So there is not a symmetry between prosecutors who lie to prosecute, and defense lawyers who lie to defend. The authority of a prosecutor to run around as an aggressor, and insert himself into the affairs of total strangers, is granted only with the greatest restraint. The authority of an individual to defend himself cannot practically be constrained. Privacy is a natural right to protect yourself, because man is naturally evil and aggressive. Man will use whatever information he can get, to do evil to any person he can take advantage of. The right of a defendant to keep secrets is sacred. The right of a stranger to invent accusations, to make up stories to fill the void created by the secrets which privacy is composed of, is zero. The difference is as sharp as the difference between consensual sex and rape. The voter does not have the moral authority to confer a right on any prosecutor to invent lies about someone. Most nations give great legal protection against the various examples of privacy violation. So if Mandi Jackson were to lie about what she did in a room with someone, that is her right. That is not my opinion, that is our cultural standard. But if the prosecution were to make up stories about what she did in a room with someone, that is the gravest transgression and taboo. Both in my opinion and our cultural standard. The contrast about who is doing the lying, is as strong as the contrast between me entering my house, and you breaking into it. That is why Detective Sprague needs to invent baseless stories in affidavits, as a trick to break the moral standards of our culture and nation. And absolutely some moral perspective needs to be restored, in a political environment where the voter has lost sight of the basic values of liberty and justice and become a benighted mob. Prosecutors who insert themselves into the affairs of others, and exceed their authority with lies, are murderers. Whereas defendants who lie to escape justice are guilty of no additional crime, because nobody would bother trying to deny them this right. The right to defend yourself is sacred. The right of prosecutors to attack strangers beyond their authority, for political ambition or to humor the mob, is zero. So prosecutors who attack strangers, and not defense lawyers who defend only their own, must be prosecuted for lies. Judges who try to fix cases with arbitrary restrictions on what evidence a defendant can present, are criminals to the extent their own vanity has lured them outside their proper authority. A less ambitious and complicated system of justice which errs on the side of innocence is not what voters demand. Voters are well known to throw away their own rights in pursuit of something that twinkles for a moment. Voters have to understand that the modest system of innocent until proven guilty is like Churchill said of democracy: The worst system, except for all the others. But I know, in nation after nation, voters clamor for a system where the worst get on top and the voters themselves end up being killed like flies. With all the new technology like video and fingerprints and DNA, police and prosecutors should be able to do better than ever even without bizarre restrictions on what the defendant can say at trial. Prosecutions should be possible even with a restoration of the right of the accused to tell the jury the truth, by showing a simple picture from the crime scene, or by saying the firearms analyst was fired for incompetence. By comparison, prosecutors who still need to resort to coerced jailhouse confession scams when provided with so much new evidence science, have to be the laziest most crooked people in the history of public justice. Judges, the judicial branch, in theory have a narrow power, that is sort of a subset of what the arresting officer has. They can block evidence and dismiss charges. But as a practical matter, local judges are not going to use their power for the benefit of the defendant, even when justified and appropriate. Because it is a lot of work with no IV-55