I watched every minute of the trial and not once did the plaintiff lawyer implied intention wrong doing. What's the reason behind this?
What these lawyer did would be like proving a person stole a car, kidnapped a woman, beat her, raped her, put the murder weapon in the killer's hand, put them at the time and place, having the pic of the killer stabbing the woman, then having the defendant admit all of that to be true, but only to say "its really odd" the lady was murder in closing, and all that when the only thing the judge cares about is if murder was intentional or not.
What was the reason behind this legal tactic? Did they simply try to introduce evidence because everyone knew it would go to appeal?
The burden of proof in a case like this is very high. Lake's lawyers would have to prove fraud, intent, and that the vote count affected by fraud would have made a difference in the outcome of the election.
I find the idea of "intent" to be absurd. If one is tampering with voting machines what possible intent could there be other than to effect the outcome of the election? But that's AZ law.
I won't bag on the judge at all. He agreed to hear the case probably knowing the political implications and that it would be appealed. And he is right. Lake's case didn't meet the burden of proof. I think it was specifically how many affected votes there were determining the outcome of the election, and on not being able to establish malicious intent.
I think "Official Misconduct" should be applied, which happens when an government official doesn't follow legal procedures.
The law simply says "misconduct" which is very high bar to prove as it means "wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose."