same question here...

Because only the well-funded can establish precedent. At least until Dobson, precedent was generally applicable, respected by lower courts and enforced on police and prosecutors.

Interesting, but that being said, if the defense does prevail, the precedents that’ll be set will likely broaden the range of shady things that can be paid for during a political campaign. Probably not a good thing for average folks.

Precedent can be and is open to change - and should be in the case of bad precedent - and did you mean Dobbs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...

Admittedly, I thought I was being concise, but edited my post into a real head-scratcher.

I was thinking along the lines of protections such as presumption of innocence, and burden of proof, as making it hard to convict people. But it does require competent defense to enforce those things.

An example of easy to convict is countries where prominent dissidents are arrested for nebulous "corruption," and basically stand no chance.

Ah, I see now. Good point.

I love common law but one aspect that seems inescapably (though perhaps not wholly) negative is the different levels of access to justice that come with different levels of wealth.