 |
|
RE: Honest answer
Posted on: January 25, 2024 at 16:57:00 CT
*M* KC
Posts:
31696
Member For:
24.13 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
When I was in law school long ago, we got virtually no instruction on trial practice. We took one class in it, and it was not useful. Everything I know about trying cases I learned after law school.
If a criminal defendant has the evidence to "prove his innocence", then he or his lawyer are fools for not presenting that evidence to the court or prosecutor before trial to get the case dismissed.
My point in the prior posts was that the prosecution, or the plaintiff in a civil case, has the "burden of proof", and if he doesn't meet it to the court's satisfaction, the case is dismissed and the defendant never has to put on a case at all. If he does meet that burden, then the defendant is allowed, but not required, to put on evidence to try to refute that case.
So no defendant is ever "forced" or required to prove his innocence as claimed by the original moron I responded to.
If a criminal defendant has the evidence to "prove his innocence", then he or his lawyer are fools for not presenting that evidence to the court or prosecutor before trial to get the case dismissed.
My point in the prior posts was that the prosecution, or the plaintiff in a civil case, has the "burden of proof", and if he doesn't meet it to the court's satisfaction, the case is dismissed and the defendant never has to put on a case at all. If he does meet that burden, then the defendant is allowed, but not required, to put on evidence to try to refute that case.
So no defendant is ever "forced" or required to prove his innocence as claimed by the original moron I responded to.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
RE: Honest answer - *M* KC - 1/25 16:57:00