[BE911SC]

A prosecutor won't take a case to court even when he/she knows and can prove guilt because juries often cannot be trusted. You don't take a case before a jury unless it is practically air-tight and even then it can be a gamble. I've been at the mercy of a jury and it isn't what you see on Law and Order. On Law and Order episodes the jury looks engaged, seems well-educated and seems to be listening intently, aren't all working class stiffs, and will actually deliberate and come to a fair conclusion. In reality, juries are often made of people not clever enough to get out of jury duty. People on jury duty also bring their own biases and prejudices with them and do not always put them aside. If they don't like you (class warfare, race, sympathy with the accused) there is no amount of evidence, of proof, that will sway them. O.J. Simpson comes to mind, although the prosecution (and judge) left a lot to be desired.

Bottom line is if a prosecutor doesn't bring a fairly solid case before a judge and jury it's because the threat of a biased jury (and possibly inept judge like Ito). Oh, and another fallacy of the Law and Order shows, and similar TV cop and justice shows, is the high level of competence. In a perfect TV show world you get high levels of competence and justice is quickly and efficiently served. In reality you have political expediency, ambitious prosecutors and defenders, intense media pressure, less than competent people, including the judges, and general intellectual and professional laziness, as the O.J. Simpson case clearly demonstrated.