Yep. And I wonder if Moore did not give the prosecutor the last word -- or have her raise these points -- because to do so would make too difficult to get Baltar acquitted.

But then that prosecutor was no prize. I mean, when Lee got Roslin to admit that she was taking a substance that caused halucinations, the prosecutor should have established that Roslin was only recently taking that stuff. Then the prosecutor could have shown that Roslin's testimony on the stand was consistent with her earlier statements about what happened. This would undercut Lee's implied argument that Roslin's testimony in court was not accurate or reliable.

Goober lawyer.

Maybe all their good lawyers were killed in the apocalypse, and the surviving ones are just nugget lawyers?

Maybe. Maybe they just need to get Joseph Adama's law books back from Lee and read up on this stuff. Or watch old re-runs of "Law & Order: Caprica."

How about asking: "So, in your view, should we pardon the person who let the Cylons through our defenses 2 years ago?" It's a legit question in response to Lee's "testimony".

But they don't know about that, they have no evidence for it, and that wasn't what he was on trial for. Roslin had a deathbed "memory" of seeing Baltar with Six before the attack. And even Roslin doesn't really know what it means; she assumes he was knowingly collaborating with the Cylons back then. And, well, he wasn't.

The prosecutor explicitly said that at the beginning of the first part -- that Baltar was on trial for collaborating with the enemy on New Caprica, because that's the only thing there was actual evidence for.

Plus, enabling the original attack is hat he was thrown in the brig for back in season one, and then Gaeta found out that Baltar was framed. By the Cylons. Who'd want to hand all of that to Romo?

But they don't know about that, they have no evidence for it, and that wasn't what he was on trial for.

Yes. Absolutely. That's why it's such a great question. The issue for lawyers is whether she had a good faith basis to ask it. She does. Lee's "testimony" about wrongdoers being pardoned didn't just open the door to the issue of the parameters of what actions should be pardoned -- it kicked the door right off the hinges and blew a big hole in the wall as well. By asking about the culpability and pardonability of anyone who was complicit in the original attack, the prosecutor – under the guise of asking about the logical extension of Lee’s position, brings the jury’s attention and emotions back to why they are all so far from their homes in the first place. She doesn’t need to directly accuse Baltar of being complicit in the original attack (and she can’t – I agree with you on this), but the very question pushes Baltar’s situation away from the other examples Lee mentioned.

Plus, if Baltar had reacted to the question, the jury might have seen guilt in his expression. Which, again, helps the prosecution.

And, Strega is, unsurprisingly, smarter than I am.

I was thinking there must be a reason they wouldn't have mentioned that. I do think though, that fairness would say that Baltar would fall under the blanket pardon. I think the trial was always intended for show.

And now his punishment is, though he may not be guilty of a crime, the cool kids still don't like him.

He is also soooo going to fuck up with his little craxy cult.

By asking about the culpability and pardonability of anyone who was complicit in the original attack, the prosecutor – under the guise of asking about the logical extension of Lee’s position, brings the jury’s attention and emotions back to why they are all so far from their homes in the first place.

I didn't think it was about culpability in the original attack, but what they'd done since. Particularly what happened on New Caprica.

And, Strega is, unsurprisingly, smarter than I am.

Well, she’s Strega. She’s smarter than us all.

And now his punishment is, though he may not be guilty of a crime, the cool kids still don't like him.

Yes, and several of them want to kill him dead.

I didn't think it was about culpability in the original attack, but what they'd done since. Particularly what happened on New Caprica.

Yes, I agree. Lee’s comments were all about that. A good prosecutor, however, could have made it be about more than the more narrow focus Lee wanted. And in doing that, the prosecutor would have gotten the jury’s emotions and heads back on what she wants them to focus on – how he signed the death warrant for 200 of his fellow humans and oh, by the way, how betrayers like him must be found guilty and punished. There is an old adage that a jury is 12 5 persons brought together to decide which side has the better lawyer. I really think most of the jury wanted to convict – but they were swayed by Lee’s argument. The prosecutor needed to give them a factual and emotional reason to vote guilty. She needed to be a better lawyer.

But lots of people were betrayers. Lawyering aside, I think Lee's point stands. We're looking for someone to blame, might as well be the guy we didn't like anyway.

What I found interesting is that they tried him for stuff he wasn't entirely guilty of (he collaborated really only in the sense of bending over spinelessly), and failed to convict him on that, not knowing that he was, in fact, the individual responsible for the Cylons coming to New Caprica at all, since he was the one who gave Gina the nuke that led them there.

If there were ever a way to get that information (which I doubt), they could try him again for treason. No double-jeopardy for a different crime, even in the BSG-verse.