4 ms·

There doesn't have to be, it's up to the prosecution to prove the reason was to aid him in avoiding arrest. The judge doesn't have to provide an alternate reaso

• foldr 1y ago
  I’m not trying to defend this arrest, but that’s not really how it works. If there’s an obvious illegal motivation for doing X and the person who did X can’t supply a plausible alternative explanation, then a jury may conclude that X was done with the illegal motivation. Say that I take an item from a store. That’s only a crime if I did it with the intent of stealing it. But the prosecution doesn’t really have to “prove” in any practical sense that I had that intention. If I don’t have a plausible story about why else I did it, then I’ll probably be found guilty.
  • Aeolun 1y ago
    > then a jury may conclude that X was done with the illegal motivation I think the whole point of a jury trial is that a jury may conclude absolutely anything, regardless of evidence presented.
    • foldr 1y ago
      Yes, exactly. And that means that trying to be a smart ass (I had a perfectly cromulent motive for doing it but I’m not going to tell you what it is and you have to prove I didn’t – nyah!) isn’t likely to be a very effective defense.