Except the govt had no right to try this case.

And you were vindicated!

Asker, consider the illogicalness of your statement: How could the system require that the government tries only the cases that the government will win?

The government can try anything it believes is appropriate. You disagreed and a jury agreed with you.
As to the attorney, it is not uncommon for an attorney to be concerned about the potential consequences should the defendant lose. The attorney has an obligation to make sure the defendant knows of the risks. If there is an offer, the attorney must not only tell the defendant what it is but explain it as well. Finally, attorneys really are human. We analyze the situation and, based on experience, make a recommendation. Sometime juries do something we hope for but are concerned that it might not.

Government is the one which decide to try this case. Government is the one which decided not to investigate the crimes/felonies committed against her. Government/People are the ones which decided not to prosecute any crimes committed against him/her. The allegation was brought up against him/her by the government/people. The allegation was tried by the government/people. In addition.......prosecutors= paid, defense lawyers = paid, judges = paid, clerks= paid, sheriffs= paid, private lawyers = paid, even the alleged "victim" in this case = paid employees/agents ....everyone =paid. Public = entertained for free. The accused = several months of his/her life wasted. The paid participants would care less if they wasted several months out of acucsed's life. Since the accusers are the ones who "vicdiated" the accused, does that make the accused feel good? Or is it the ACCUSERS who feel good accusing and "vindicating" him/her for free?

And Ms. McCall...why doesn't the same statement apply to other isses in which the same person has been physically injured?

And this is not the first time the government/People has done this to him/her! The alleged "victim" of the selective case that the government decide to try has no injuries, paid "victim", appeared to have been enjoying their jobs and power they get through the job contacts.

Since this post was tagged as from Sacramento, we did not at first recognize that this "question" is related to the history issues posted about so frequently and relentlessly, usually from Newport or Huntington Beach. In all events, this is not the site for the argument you frame. You have received here multiple responses all correctly advising you as to the provisions of current law. More than that is beyond the scope or purposes of Avvo.com.