Court orders new trial for man convicted of hiring a hitman to kill his wife's lover

The point I'm trying to make is that, once a person is found guilty, if a new trial is granted - then the burden of proof to demonstrate innocence based on evidence that could not have been reasonably introduced at the original trial should fall on the defense.

The guilty person put on trial for a second (or third, etc.) time should not automatically get a clean slate, and it should not be the responsibility of the prosecution to have to reprove their case.

As for this appeal, if the defense attorney had been doing their job properly, they would have pointed out to the jury that the person had had a stroke before the cross examination. Incompetence on the part of the attorney - perhaps. Justify a new trial, no. But let's continue this nonsense that defense attorneys can make all the mistakes the want, and will usually get a new trial anyway. But the prosecution is always to be 110% picture perfect, and can never get a new trial where their error resulted in a guilty person going free. Instead of this "higher standard BS", how about we give BOTH sides equal treatment when it comes to evaluating appeals, especially when said appeals have nothing to do wit actual evidence, and everything to do with idiotic semantics.

And if you disagree with me, ask yourselves this. Suppose the person had been found not guilty because the jury had been told about the stroke. Would the prosecution been able to appeal the verdict on the theory that, knowing about the stroke, the jury may have been sympathetic to that person? Although this would be similar to the defense argument that the jury may have considered the person evasive during cross, I seriously doubt it.

Sorry if I sound overly cynical here, but I'm sick and tired of the increasingly prevailing concept that decisions made by 12 supposedly intelligent people can be so easily disregarded and discarded.