Leave the emotion to the soap operas

Remember the OJ Simpson trial?  I do.  I was in law school at the time and it was such a big deal that the law library set up a television for students to watch the proceedings.

I remember watching the 15 m.p.h. police chase down the 405 freeway as OJ led the police on the SLOWEST get-away chases in the history of get-away chases.  

I remember the subsequent circus/criminal trial in which the prosecution regularly got handed their heads for screwing up simple procedural matters (like not Shepardizing key cases).  

I remember the infamous "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"  quote (that really was the stupidest line in the whole case).  

I remember the day the verdict was handed down and OJ hugged his attorneys.  The persons OJ should have hugged was the prosecution.  They couldn't have bungled the case any worse than they did.

Heck, I also remember thinking whether the prosecution had been bought off having just thrown the biggest trial in a long, long time.  I mean, they really worked to screw it up.

Fast forward a few years and we get to People v. Arredondo et al. (D072632).  On August 9, 2012, the defendants kidnapped and murdered a small-time drug user and distributor in the Moreno Valley area of Riverside County named Fernando Renteria.  

At the trial of Mr. Arredondo and his cohorts, the prosecution repeatedly referred to the defendant's as "cockroaches."  While the trial court didn't seem to mind, the appellate court did.  So much, in fact, that, taking into account the other errors and slights promulgated by the prosecution, the Appellate Court reversed the conviction putting these gang members back on the street to do more crime(s).

What bothers me is that daily I read about cases that were tossed/reversed because the prosecution did something to screw-up a case.  In this case, the prosecutor chose to interject their own opinions instead of sticking to the facts by repeatedly referring to the defendants as "cockroaches."  

Really, there are no other adjectives you could have used?  How about "defendants" or "accused" or "offender" or "prisoner(s)" or "suspect(s)?"  Nope, we have to use derogatory and debasing terms that annoy and irritate the appellate court resulting in having decisions reversed.  Yep, let's waste taxpayer money and do the latter.

What a bunch of amateurs.