Federal judges have enormous power in a courtroom. Usually, they are very bright, very decisive, and pretty domineering. They also have lifetime tenure, subject to removal only on grounds of impeachment. Federal courts also use the single-assignment system (as opposed to what is known as a master calendar system) by which they will have a given case assigned to them from pre-trial all the way through to trial, meaning that a judge typically has lived with a given case through the process and knows it well.

Having litigated before such judges in quite a few settings (though not criminal), and having clerked for one back in the day, I can say with great assurance that, if the judge starts the trial by saying to you as a prosecutor, in effect, "what the hell are we doing here," you know your case is in pretty serious trouble. When the judge goes on for a half hour straight berating you, it is doubly so. This does not mean that a determined prosecutor can't push a case forward but it will be a real uphill fight.

The items that offended the judge in particular: both the prosecution's witnesses had dirty hands relating to the central issue in the case (both having themselves committed crimes); the government's own manual had stipulated for the past decade that a crime of this type could only be a crime if the defendant acted with a willful intent to violate the law (mens rea) and the prosecutor waltzes in with proposed jury instructions (i.e., jury instructions that he is asking the judge to adopt as the court's own and use in instructing the jury in this case) that say that such an intent is not needed for the jury to find the defendant guilty.

Therefore, a case that reeks and a total lack of integrity in the government's position. And the judge says, in effect, "what are you trying to pull in my court, Mr. Prosecutor." Not a happy position for the prosecutor here, though I think this one deserves to squirm a little for doing what he did.

jriley: Email me suhail@mixpanel.com -- You just got free Mixpanel, good luck when you launch we're here to help.

Calling it an “HTML5 website” is a bit of an overreaction IMHO.

Other than the DOCTYPE, there’s not much “HTML5” to it. It’s just good old HTML, JavaScript and CSS, wrapped together in a document that happens to use the HTML5 DOCTYPE.

I think it's great that you've tried to provide a review criticizing this post. But please resist the urge to tell me what I ought to find funny, just as I have resisted the urge to tell you what you ought to find interesting.

Especially resist the urge to criticize others for liking things you find unworthy. Your comment's criticism of the OP is appreciated. Your comment's criticism of other members for voting for the post is, well, something else entirely.

A better title: "3 Time Winner of Computer Games Olympiad Wins Yet Another Contest".