The courts deal in evidence, and the rules of evidence, not public popularity, the OJ trial notwithstanding.

If certain evidence is not available because it wasn't collected, and all other evidence is impeached as hearsay, there will be no evidence. The court could be forced on principle to dismiss before a jury (which could bend the rules of evidence, as juries have before) is even impanelled. It will all depend on the prosecution's ability to defend the evidence it has, based on legal precedent and the inherent credibility of the evidence itself. I hope they do their homework and don't just count on some groundswell of patriotism to carry their arguments.

Lindh must receive a fair trial according to the rules. We are a nation of laws, a polyglot society whose sole common thread is a dream of liberty codified in a great document (the Constitution) and the supporting history of our struggle to live up to it. Our devotion to principles of law, more than anything else, unites us as a nation and gives us moral authority among those non-Americans who admire us. We must adhere to our own rules, even if it means letting Lindh go.

This is not to say that Lindh would enjoy a long and happy life on the outside. But that form of justice is not a legal solution.

Regards--
Mary Anne