Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
In the criminal case, the burden of proof rests solely on the government. The defense need make no defense whatsoever beyond merely denying the charges.

That's the theory, but it practice it is the opposite. I was on a petit jury once and the (court-appointed) defense attorney made just that point: he offered no evidence on behalf of the defendant, and asked no questions about any testimony offered by the prosecution. He said he needed to present no defense, that the burden of proof was on the prosecution.

This did not go well with the jury. IMAO, the defense attorney should have been disbarred. It is my view that the prosecution did not make a case. It was logically faulty. But the other jurors voted to convict after a few minutes. Since the prosecution's logic was so faulty, I held out for acquittal for a week, but, to my shame, eventually gave in.

That is how it works in practice.
Print the post  

Announcements

Disclaimer:
In accordance with IRS Circular 230, you cannot use the contents of any post on The Motley Fool's message boards to avoid tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement