5 ms·
> The jury would then convict because that's stupid. You're describing a situation where the prosecution says "this guy did it" and then provides no evidence.
by nilkn 10y ago
> The jury would then convict because that's stupid.
You're describing a situation where the prosecution says "this guy did it" and then provides no evidence. Then the defense says "no, this other completely plausible stuff happened" and then also provides no evidence. Then the jury defaults to the prosecution's case which is precisely an inversion of "innocent until proven guilty."
- PJDK 10y agoSorry if I wasn't clear, but the implication was intended to be that the prosecution would set out a case (witness statements, DNA whatever...) and just replying as the defendant with a simple statement would not be enough. The jury will do what the jury will do, but my very very limited experience (was on jury duty but didn't actually sit on a case, chatted to a defense lawyer and chatted to someone else who has also actually sat on a jury for a murder case - all in the UK) is that they are more inclined to side with the defendant. Edited to clarify the first paragraph
- alasdair_ 10y ago> they are more inclined to side with the defendant. When it comes to especially horrible crimes (rape, murder, especially of children), I don't believe this is true.