I suspect you meant "being found not guilty is nearly impossible". And federal prosecution is absolutely nothing like a fair coin toss -- the federal conviction rate is 90+%.
I think this has something to do with the tactics used in federal cases -- throwing an array of charges and seizing assets, for example. Also, the idea of jury nullification (the idea that jurors can find someone 'not guilty' of an unjust law) cannot be broached by the defense.
> I think this has something to do with the tactics used in federal cases
Yes, and that tactic is not wasting resources bringing a case unless it's a slam-dunk. Say what you want about the Schwartz prosecution, but it was a slam-dunk case. The debate was political: whether his actions merited such harsh punishment, not legal: it was clear and undisputed that he entered the closet, downloaded the articles, changed his MAC address to evade the ban, etc, and those actions were almost certainly crimes within the letter of the law.
A system where a trials didn't result in a high conviction rate would be supremely broken. It would mean that prosecutors were bringing cases without enough evidence to make them a likely win.
"And federal prosecution is absolutely nothing like a fair coin toss -- the federal conviction rate is 90+%."
It better be. Yes, a high conviction rate can be a symptom of injustice, but it need not be. A low conviction rate, on the other hand, is a sure symptom of injustice. It would be truly harassment if the feds prosecuted many where they should know they don't stand a chance of getting a conviction.
Would you consider a system just that brought persons to trial without a strong probability that they were guilty as charged? If so, why have grand juries?
I think this has something to do with the tactics used in federal cases -- throwing an array of charges and seizing assets, for example. Also, the idea of jury nullification (the idea that jurors can find someone 'not guilty' of an unjust law) cannot be broached by the defense.