There's this incredibly inconvenient thing in Anglo-American jurisprudence called "burden of proof". In criminal cases, until you show that the defendant is gui

There's this incredibly inconvenient thing in Anglo-American jurisprudence called "burden of proof". In criminal cases, until you show that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", you have to act like they're not guilty: also known as the presumption of innocence. "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat" (Latin for "the burden of proof is for the one who makes the claim, not the one who denies it"). See the links below, making special note of the fact that the "reasonable doubt" standard applies in both countries relevant to this case, the UK and the US (with the caveat that judges in the UK don't use the phrase anymore post-2008): [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence