Oddbean new post about login | logout All I'm saying is what actually took place. I'm not arguing anything related to the substance of the trial.
Yes, I understand. And what you're saying really sucks for Ross. It's like if you're on trial for shoplifting and feel that you didn't get a fair trial so you appeal it, and the DA says no - and by the way we also think this person broke into someone's home. They never actually arrest you for the break-in but you get 5 years for shoplifting because the judge is influenced by the break-in accusations (that you never get to counter in court).
Well, in this case, Ross' lawyers were able to confront the allegations, and the evidence presented by the prosecution, but the judge agreed with the prosecution and determined that there was sufficient evidence to make a probable determination that the alleged conduct did take place.
I understand he had his appeal chance and the Supreme Court denied hearing it, letting the appeal stand. I have not read the appeal judgements, but a judge sentencing that includes “facts” that were not established by the jury of his peers, is the problem. You are found guilty of X, you were not found guilty of Y, your sentence is what it is because you did Y, So says the prosecution who did not charge it or did not meet the evidentiary threshold to persuade a jury. None the less the judge includes that as a fact established. But he didn’t wave his right to a jury trial did he? So who established that fact? Juries are supposed to establish the facts of a case. Justice served? Seems like no to me so far.