I am sure many of us have heard, in recent days, that a certain high-profile prosecution was politically motivated and unfair. Hearing this from the cult members, or the propaganda media outlets’ opinion hosts that are extensions of the defendant’s legal defense team on the PR front, should not come with much surprise. After all, for cult members and disingenuous propaganda media, facts and evidence have little to no value compared to any accusations that their cult leader may make about every part of the legal system, from the prosecutor and their team, to the judge and their family, and even the jury and their city of residence. What is astonishing, though, is to see some non-cult members, on either side of the aisle, making similar claims or accusations; i.e., some of those who seem to have genuine belief in the rule of law and independence of the justice system from other branches of the government, and even independence of the justice department from the head of the executive branch (in making judicial decisions such as bringing indictments or not), seem to be making similar claims. The justification for these claims is usually the fact that the justice department already considered this case and passed. The predecessor of the current district attorney also considered this case and passed. Even this very same district attorney initially seemed very reluctant about bringing charges in this case and at some point the case seemed to have already been closed. From these facts, and only these, without actually arguing about the merits of the case (charges and evidence) they seem to draw the conclusion that the defendant should be innocent. And, now that the Manhattan DA has finally decided to bring charges, and had a grand jury evaluate the evidence and testimonies and deliver indictments, then it should definitely be rigged, unfair, and politically motivated.

I find this argument quit absurd. But before I try to explain, I should clarify that I am not a legal expert, and am not certainly trying to make legal arguments here. As you will see, what comes below is simply a set of logical arguments based on common sense, and one does not need to have a law degree to appreciate them. Now, to explain my disagreement with the arguments of the previous paragraph, let’s consider the more general concept of methodology of proof, for existence of something, and also for non-existence of something. I believe the first one is quite easy, and very few, if any, would object to that. That is, in order to prove that something exists, it is sufficient to make at least one observation. You may want to increase your confidence by trying to make multiple observations, especially if observations are not perfect and may include some errors. But if observations are decisive, then only one observation is sufficient. It is sufficient to see the Sun once during the day to know/prove that it exists. You don’t necessarily need to make the same observation at all times, for example at night times as well.

Proving non-existence of something is, however, quite different. One cannot claim that something does not exist based on a single observation. You cannot claim that the Sun does not exist just because you looked at the sky one night and did not see the Sun. Even if you look at the sky ten nights in a row and not see the Sun, still you cannot claim that you have proven that the Sun does not exist. For that, you need many more observations. In theory, if what you are trying to prove its non-existence can only manifest itself within a finite set of observation opportunities, then you need to make every single one of those observations, each one confirming the lack of existence of the subject, to be able to claim that you have proven the non-existence of that subject. In fact, proving non-existence of something, in general, is so difficult that one may even argue that it is an impossibility.

The conclusion that I am attempting to draw from the above arguments is that just because the justice department and a district attorney decided not to prosecute a case, is not a proof of innocence (non-existence of guilt) of the defendant in that case. This may sound a bit outlandish, but technically, if one really wanted to prove the innocence (lack of guilt) of some defendant, they should go around the nation and ask every single prosecutor whether they would be willing to prosecute that case or not, and if all the answers were negative, then they may (note the emphasis on may) be able to argue that the innocence of the defendant is proven. What I am saying here has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Note that this statement says presumption of innocence, and not proof of innocence. If it were the latter, then the second part of the statement, “until proven guilty” would be meaningless. In short, everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But simple reluctance of one or two prosecutors to bring charges on a case is certainly not a proof of innocence. It is not too difficult for anyone to imagine many high-profile cases for which several prosecutors may decide to not bring charges. Prosecutors are also human beings, and no matter how ethical and conscientious they may be, their reputations and careers are also certainly important to them. So if they are not very confident about a potential conviction, they can be rightfully reluctant to put their career and reputation on the line by prosecuting a high-profile case, especially one that attracts national attention. I have not done a research on this, but I can imagine several prosecutors probably considered bringing charges against the famous (or as some may say, the “great”) Alfonso Capone, but then backed up because they were not 100% sure about a potential conviction, and did not want to jeopardize their career and reputation. Does that mean that Al Capone was an innocent person? and that if any other prosecutor decided to bring charges against him, those charges would be rigged and unfair? Obviously not.

In the high-profile cases, as long as a brave prosecutor decides to take the risk and put themselves under the scrutiny of every single person, especially partisan hacks and propaganda media opinion hosts, by starting a prosecution and by bringing legitimate indictments, e.g., handed down by a grand jury, then that case is certainly legitimate and fair. The defendant, of course, is presumed innocent during the entire process unless a jury of their peers delivers a guilty verdict. Those who argue otherwise, and try to label the prosecution rigged, unfair, and politically motivated, based on the argument that other prosecutors had already passed on the case, are either ignorant, or are intentionally trying to deceive people for their own personal or political gain.