hi clo,
he really needed to stand up for the decision of the jury. that is the sine qua non of the us system.
and that entails the fact that z was found not guilty.
instead, he's cast a shadow over z's life by keeping the door to a prosecution open, when z had every right to expect a defence of his unguilty status from the united states' chief representative in matters of law.
the fact holder chose not to stand his ground - by omitting to fix himself to the notion that the jury had spoken - suggests he might abandon the innocence presumption whenever the wind blows and it suits the government to blow with it.
there's a time to stand up to mob justice. that time was missed.
remember coriolanus?
"What may be sworn by, both divine and human,
Seal what I end withal! This double worship,
Where one part does disdain with cause, the other
Insult without all reason, where gentry, title, wisdom,
Cannot conclude but by the yea and no
Of general ignorance,—it must omit
Real necessities, and give way the while
To unstable slightness: purpose so barr'd,
it follows,
Nothing is done to purpose. Therefore, beseech you,—
You that will be less fearful than discreet,
That love the fundamental part of state
More than you doubt the change on't, that prefer
A noble life before a long, and wish
To jump a body with a dangerous physic
That's sure of death without it, at once pluck out
The multitudinous tongue; let them not lick
The sweet which is their poison: your dishonour
Mangles true judgment and bereaves the state
Of that integrity which should become't,
Not having the power to do the good it would,
For the in which doth control't."
| 
