As the jurors did I would have found for the plaintiffs for big money in a civil court.
I was pretty sure he did it, but given the evidence at trial I might not have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I did not see all the evidence but I was concerned that it looked like the cops might have tried to frame a guilty guy.
I also note, I take the constitution very seriously and I also believe prosecutors frequently misrepresent what a reasonable doubt is.
from wikipedia...
United States[edit]
In the United States, juries must be instructed to apply the reasonable doubt standard when determining the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, but there is much disagreement as to whether the jury should be given a definition of "reasonable doubt."[11] InVictor v. Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the unclear reasonable doubt instructions at issue, but stopped short of setting forth an exemplary jury instruction.[12]
The U.S. Supreme Court first discusses the term in Miles v. United States (1880): "The evidence upon which a jury is justified in returning a verdict of guilty must be sufficient to produce a conviction of guilt, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt." In re Winship(1970) establishes that the doctrine also applies to juvenile criminal proceedings, and indeed to all the essential facts necessary to prove the crime: "[W]e explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."
---------------------
If funny I have a leftist trying to chastise me for being pro individual rights.
If you were a classical liberal (which I am in many ways) instead of a anti individual rights pre fascist you just might understand what I just wrote and why I wrote it.
I was pretty sure he did it, but given the evidence at trial I might not have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I did not see all the evidence but I was concerned that it looked like the cops might have tried to frame a guilty guy.
I also note, I take the constitution very seriously and I also believe prosecutors frequently misrepresent what a reasonable doubt is.
from wikipedia...
United States[edit]
In the United States, juries must be instructed to apply the reasonable doubt standard when determining the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, but there is much disagreement as to whether the jury should be given a definition of "reasonable doubt."[11] InVictor v. Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the unclear reasonable doubt instructions at issue, but stopped short of setting forth an exemplary jury instruction.[12]
The U.S. Supreme Court first discusses the term in Miles v. United States (1880): "The evidence upon which a jury is justified in returning a verdict of guilty must be sufficient to produce a conviction of guilt, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt." In re Winship(1970) establishes that the doctrine also applies to juvenile criminal proceedings, and indeed to all the essential facts necessary to prove the crime: "[W]e explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."
---------------------
If funny I have a leftist trying to chastise me for being pro individual rights.
If you were a classical liberal (which I am in many ways) instead of a anti individual rights pre fascist you just might understand what I just wrote and why I wrote it.