Quote:
|
Originally Posted by x5GuyInLA
That's the thing.........in order to get convicted, it has to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. If there is any doubt that he isn't the killer and someone else is, however small, they can't convict him. He may have been 99.9% guilty, but those uncertainties may have cast that .1% that he didn't do it, which is why he walked. That's why he lost the civil case, because in that type of trial, it only has to be beyond a preponderance of a doubt, where he only needs to be 51% guilty or liable to get convicted.
|
Incorrect. The legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is much different than "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "beyond any doubt". There is no magic number of percentage where one can be found guilty. It's simply left to the jury to determine whether they have a doubt and whether it is a reasonable one. They do not need to erase all doubt. If you think about it, you can find doubt anywhere and you can doubt anything. If you wanted to, you could doubt your very existence but you don't because it's not reasonable given all of the facts.
I won't get into the jury instruction that defines "reasonable doubt" but suffice it to say, it's not as absolute as you stated.
I just wanted to clear that up because it's an important distinction.
11-21-2006, 09:26 PM
Threaded Mode
