I'm still stuck on the part where we convict people due to their emotions and not due to evidence that they committed the crime. Smiling during a robbery is not conducive to actually performing said robbery, so why is it admissible in court? The judge shouldn't need to make a call on this at all.
I've seen a lot of "the victim was insufficiently distressed therefore they must be lying" in spousal abuse cases. Performance is apparently a huge part of how much you're believed in court
Jk it's never been the reality, proles get convicted on hearsay and less all the time, pigs and ceos can have literal video evidence against them and get off.