Quote:
Originally Posted by PennBF
It does not say in the Constitution that if you feel someone is guilty you should convict them.
I understand your points but feel they seriously divert attention from the
need for absolute proof.  |
Hi PennBF,
I understand your points but "absolute proof" is neither possible nor required in our criminal code. While many people believe that the state must prove a criminal defendent guilty "beyond all doubt", or to an absolute certainty, it just isn't so.
CaliforniaGirl is right that the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Murder convictions have been upheld in which the only available evidence was circumstantial.
It is likely that in his "charge" or instructions to the jury, the judge will explain the "reasonable doubt" standard. Sometimes judges instruct the jury that their job is to "return a verdict that speaks the truth".
I haven't followed the details of this trial and don't have a guess as to what the jury will do.