> he had told the jury the “lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence.” Wait, what? Since when in the US legal system did the defendant need to prove "evi

> he had told the jury the “lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence.” Wait, what? Since when in the US legal system did the defendant need to prove "evidence of innocence"? I am really getting tired of hearing BS like this from the prosecution team on high-profile cases! If they are pulling this crap when everyone is watching, what chance do any of us normal folks have at getting a fair shake from the Justice system if we ever end up in the defendant's chair?