Suppose your enemy is trying to frame you for murder. He does a good job of fabricating evidence, and you are arrested and charges are filed. Of course you are not guilty, so you refuse all plea offers. But being innocent does not guaranty you will win at trial, and your “no plea” position is very risky. Indeed, the stakes could not be higher. Under the law of your state the only allowable penalty for murder is life in prison without possibility of parole. Your case goes to trial, and the DA’s entire case against you comes down to the testimony of two witnesses. Even though you are not guilty, it is clear to everyone that if either of these witnesses testifies against you, it is CERTAIN you will be convicted.
Suppose the DA is feeling magnanimous and says to you, “I don’t need both of these witnesses. If either of them testifies against you, I will get a conviction, so I will call only one of them and what’s more, I will let you choose.”
Finally, suppose that all you know about the witnesses is that one of them is an orthodox Christian and one is an atheist and that your enemy has offered each of them ten million dollars to testify falsely against you.
Two questions:
1. Do you have enough information so that you would be other than indifferent about which witness to choose?
2. If the answer to the first question is “yes,” which do you choose and why?