It's not fair that the accused is not protected from adverse publicity whilst the accuser is guaranteed anonymity, whatever the verdict.

We'll leave out whether he got a fair verdict or not,

We thought that a not guilty verdict was the only fair decision.

I don't think it was a fair trial. The direct and indirect evidence was causation for a verdict in his favor.

A lawyer is in an awful position about that. It's not fair to the accused who is charged with a serious crime if a lawyer says he's not going to take the case because it reflects badly on the accused and that's not fair to him. On the other hand, if a lawyer is deciding to take the case and hasn't made up his mind, it's also difficult for the accused.

Anyone can be falsely accused of a crime. Everyone accused of a crime deserves a fair trial.