Hacker News Reader

But there's plenty of evidence.

Perhaps so. I'm not familiar with the details of the case.

But this I do know: prior felony convictions are manifestly not evidence.

Presenting them as such causes me to seriously doubt the broader argument you are trying to make here.

Prior convictions are evidence in the broad sense (because they provide information that could update one's belief about a defendant's character or likelihood of committing a crime), but not legally admissible evidence (in many jurisdictions).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com