Test links Winston's (Heisman trophy winner) DNA to accuser

[sendero]

106. You are trying to conflat my example.

... with a "malicious prosecution" in which there is scant evidence and the prosecutor knows there is little chance of conviction.

Particularly in the rape case, it is largely a he said she says scenario with witnesses who will corraborate both sides of the story. Why should it be up to a couple of people in the prosecution team to decide a winner here. It is supposed to be up to a jury.

Also, in your scenario a friend or family of a prosecutor would never have to fear paying for his crimes, the prosecutor could just always claim he is clairvoyant and knows the jury would not convict.

In the case of George Zimmerman this is exactly the scenario that almost played out. It was only massive public pressure that made a trial happen at all. And it was only willful idiocy of the jury that inhibited a conviction. There is nothing we can do about idiot juries or even thrown prosecutions (many argue that happened here, I don't know) but when there is strong evidence a crime has been commited a jury needs to hear it.