How is possible for a case where there is no evidence towards the defendant that he committed the crime, NO CRIME SCENE. NO GUN. NO PROOF. in a he shot or not case for the jury to come to random conclusion or verdict that the defendant was not the shooter but a getaway driver? When there was nobody else involved in the case and after the victim had already switched the version of his story to 7 (SEVEN) completely different versions? Also admitted on the stand the prosecutor showed him pictures and gave him details about the defendant at the beginning of trial. Giving him details including a scar and eye color of the defendant and the color of the car to stick to because the victim was shot at night. There are plenty more details that indicate corruption to a obvious level.The color difference of the car describe the first versions was comparing black to white, but after the detective spoke to the victim he gave him additional information, instead of questioning him and interrogating him like they do to victims in other cases and how they did the defendant threatening him that they had videos and evidence which they did not have at all. I don't understand how they can give the prosecutors any credibility to their accusations after the victim straight up admitted on the stand that the detective had gave him additional information and showed him pictures of the defendant. Something that is illegal. Finally to top it off the night the victim was shot there was one police report which involved a truck matching his vehicles description in a shooting in the neighborhood where the victims family members are a part of that neighborhoods gang. I am not a lawyer and clearly noticed why our attorney was arguing reasonable doubt, could he have done more?