If there's a mistrial, they'll try Melly again, and presumably they'll get a better prosecutor on the case. the evidence against melly is strong - they put him at the scene of the crime, and with the bodies after they were dead. They indicate that someone in the car shot them, and that the bodies were driven around after they were shot. And there was a shell casing in the car. And Melly's accomplice took them to the hospital after driving around with them, claiming it was a drive by (which ballistics refutes), and then Melly praised him in a text or whatever saying what that guy did for him.
People talk about motive like it's a big deal, because of cop shows or whatever. But it's not an element that actually needs to be proven - prosecutors need to establish mens rea (the mental element - ie, that it wasn't an accident, or done without what is called criminal intent)and actus rea (the physical element of doing it). Motive can be a good counter argument - this guy would've never done that, he loved his friends! But if the evidence is strong not only that melly did it, but also that he was part of a conspiracy to lie about it... motive is really not a big deal, it would just be a weird quirk, because it just needs to be proven melly did it, the jury don't really need to understand why.
How you bully the nikka putting the money into your pockets, it’s no different when kids who are bullied finally snap one day and people are shocked at it
