Even People in Banana Republics are Shaking Their Heads in Confusion

Let me see if I have this right. A prosecutor runs for election on the promise he is going to prosecute a person for some crime, any crime. He will decide later.

That individual is finally charged. The crime is a misdemeanor. And yes, that misdemeanor was way past the statute of limitations, but if the prosecutor can tie that crime to another crime then it is OK to charge the defendant.  Legal experts all over try to tell the prosecutor that is not how the law works, no one ever has been charged like that, but the prosecutor says "But I promised to get him for something, anything."

The judge decides the defendant cannot exercise his First Amendment rights because the judge doesn't like the fact that the defendant says the judge is biased and his daughter is a fundraiser and major supporter of the other political party, even though it is absolutely true. The judge threatens to fine and send the defendant to jail if he says anything negative about his trial.

The star witness is an admitted perjurer and felon. He lies in his testimony, and admits he is a thief and embezzler, but we should ignore that because the crimes he is testifying about are so heinous. 

What are those crimes? Despite the Sixth Amendment, which says "[the accused is] informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...to have compulsory witnesses in his favor." The prosecutor and judge decide that naming the crime is prejudicial against the State's case. And to confuse the issue the Judge lets people testify to salacious details that are fun and exciting, but have absolutely nothing to do with bookkeeping entries that may or may not be illegal. 

The judge tells the jury they can choose what additional crime the accused committed. The judge will not tell them the law, the defense cannot have witnesses to describe the law, and believe it or not, the jury does not have to agree on whatever additional crime the defendant did, as long as all twelve think he did something, anything, illegal. 

Oh, the defendant is a politician and of the other party from the judge and prosecutor. 

But we are not to think any of this is political nor unfair.