You know, Mike, one of the things that we wanted to talk about was, of course, we all know this

case. And you as a prosecutor know, no matter how much evidence you have, no matter how strong

your case is, there's always a chance that the jury will acquit, you know?

No question about it.

And you always have to worry about that. in this case you know it's that old

expression one in hands is worth two in the bush right so if you have a conviction you have a guilty

plea uh many prosecutors will take it but in this case i'm not arguing over that it was the correct

thing to do i'm just arguing over you it was the correct thing to do.

I'm just arguing over you got nothing for it.

You've got nothing for it. Mike, your thoughts.

I agree with you.

I agree with you.

I think that what the prosecutor, the prosecutor did have a very, very triable case.

Again, as you said, Bill, nothing is a slam dunk when you go to into a jury

trial. But in this case, particularly with the one piece of evidence, which I think seals the deal,

is his DNA recovered from that sheath of the knife that was found in the in the

crime on the in the in the crime scene i think that was the thing that's like the coup de gra

you know you put all the rest of the evidence together and then you hit them with the DNA

and you say to the jury essentially why was his DNA on something that didn't

belong to any of the people in that house? It had to be his and he had to be there. So that's

what you would do. But if the jury is, let's say, a little bit anti-death penalty, because this was a

death penalty case, or the jury maybe

...