The Usurper:If I witness a murder, it's not a slam dunk in a court of law.  It's solid evidence and will be enough to convict.  But it's not a slam dunk.  The opposition will try to discredit me, discredit what I say I say, and any number of other possible defense tactics.

But if I witness a murder, and get it all on tape - crisp and clear - then it's a slam dunk.  It's indisputable.  The accused can say, "I was defending myself" but the video shows the victim with his hands up etc.  The jury doesn't have to sort out the he said she saids, it's there on the video.  In most cases, where a video is involved, the defense seeks a plea because they recognize the case is lost.

If the case you make is beyond a reasonable doubt, then you could  claim a slam dunk.  But reasonable doubt is all over the place.  Neither side has a slam dunk.  Both sides have questions to answer.

Even full knowledge of events such as Pearl Harbor are not a slam dunk.  True it's a slam dunk that the Japanese attacks us, but many situations surrounding that attack are not fully know, even today.  Anytime you have reasonable doubt about an event, you don't have a slam dunk.  At best, you have a lay up shot with many obstacles in the way.  In a slam dunk, there's no opposition.  It's much like being alone on the court.