jurors dont need to know the evidence says judge

so, this is the future of u.s. court cases then. the fbi says it has evidence of a crime in a sting operation, but the jury dont need to know what it is.

every day my jaw drops a little more at what is being allowed to happen all in the name of 'fighting terrorism'.

next, they'll just abolish the courts when they think someone is guilty. oh, wait, they've already done that so im just wondering what they could possibly do next.

anyway, read this latest story on how to instruct a jury that a defendant must be guilty based on the presentation of no evidence whatsoever. (umm, thats a 'need to know' situation ladies and gentlemen and trust me, you dont need to know).

Grand Juries, have been voting to issue indictments based on the prosecutors suspicions for decades...(rather than only on hard evidence)
This ongoing ?trial? is more or less an extension of that way of thinking...

the FBI, or police, or whomever is running the 'sting'...will insist that bringing
in the undercover agents, or disclosing the snitches, will hamper their ongoing investigations.
All the while, there is the very real possibility that the 'sting' is nothing more than
an 'entrapment' operation, which may never have come about on it's own accord.
but progressed only because the characters on the 'sting' initiated and carried out the criminal activity and dragged others into the illegal activity.