[smart_creature]

Not a lawyer or legal expert. But American juries are generally unpredictable and overwhelming evidence doesn't always decide cases (look at the O.J Simpson trial or more recently Bill Cosby or the first Epstein case). I think the general consensus is that there's a lot of damning evidence against her and there's a good chance she'll be found guilty. But a lot depends on how effective her defense is in swaying the jury and a lot of technicalities. Plus there's the baby/new mother factor that might influence her sentencing if not the jury verdict

[mannerheim]

There wasn't overwhelming evidence in the Cosby case, which is precisely why his conviction was overturned. He was convicted based on testimony he was forced to give against himself in a civil trial where he was not allowed to exercise his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. The previous DA specifically said there wasn't enough evidence to convict Cosby, which is both why he never pursued charges and why Cosby was forced to testify against himself (without the threat of criminal indictment, he didn't have the right against self-incrimination on the civil suit).

[smart_creature]

You are technically correct but I don't see what the contradiction is. You could say that his testimony was 'overwhelming evidence' (he practically admitted to doing what he was accused of). Yes, improperly obtained and inadmissible, hence the 'technicalities' part. My point is that even an open confession existing somewhere is not a guarantee of conviction or a long prison sentence.

[mannerheim]

If the exclusion of a single piece of evidence whose use in a trial was unconstitutional meant there wasn't enough evidence to convict, I would say there wasn't 'overwhelming evidence'.