A prosecutor who touts her ability to read minds and who believes her bizarre fantasies to be ‘evidence’: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30016093/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/
Based only on the case presented here, in his signature ghost-story manner by Matthew Perry’s stepdad, here is how I proceed in the jury room. I ignore totally the testimony of the jailhouse snitch. I ignore totally the testimony of the self-professed earwitness. (I would ignore it even if she had claimed to be an eyewitness.) The fantasies of the prosecutor I totally ignore; in fact, generally, I would ignore stories made up prosecutors or police; I want evidence, not a story. I do not need to know exactly how things unfolded, just who was involved and in what capacity; if you provide too much of a story, then I’m actually going to be inclined to doubt your own ability to present evidence. (Stories by the defense are a different matter; if any plausible story exists is given by the defense, then I will find ‘not guilty’.) So I am left with the entire evidence being that some traces of a husband’s DNA were found on the body of his wife.
Honestly, I don’t know whether the guy is guilty or not, but I have a real problem with prosecutors of this sort, who think they have ESP. (Judge Judy has the same problem, but luckily her TV show could only result in an adverse small claims arbitration, not jail, poverty, loss of reputation.)