This is why I do not like the legal system as it stands presently. I don't know if there's a better way to go about trying people in court, but faulty eye-witness testimony is the worst form of evidence you can possibly have. Just ask any scientists about witness testimony.
Two key testimonies against Blake were provided by known drug users, and a third witness's testimony against Blake was disputed by the witness's own relatives. The evidence was in Blake's favor and the testimonies against him in the trial were not dependable. Factual evidence should play a greater role in determining guilt or innocence than conjecture by word-of-mouth witnesses.
No, they had a lot of evidense that pointed at him as the man that committed this crime, and I do not think that they did a bad job during this trial. I think that all of the people who testified were good sources to be relied on in the court.
I do not believe there was any reason to find the witness in this case unreliable. His own testimony was used, but he was also charged in the case as an accomplice. I do not believe prosecutors should have taken a different approach. They presented the facts per what was available to them.
No, prosecutors should not have taken a different approach to the trial of Robert Blake, rather than depending upon controversial testimony of an unreliable witness, because it was Blake's celebrity that got him off, rather than the testimony. You can Monday-Morning Quarterback strategy all day long, but the prosecutors did a fine job with what they had.