We use cookies to improve security, personalize the user experience, enhance our marketing activities (including cooperating with our marketing partners) and for other business use.
Click "here" to read our Cookie Policy. By clicking "Accept" you agree to the use of cookies. Read less
Jurors should look at the evidence presented during the trial and think critically about whether they can truly believe the accused is guilty, without any lingering doubts.
It's important because it protects individuals from being wrongly punished. Everybody deserves a fair shake, right?
If the jury has any reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt, they must acquit, meaning they have to let them go. It's the fair way to do things.
No, the prosecution must provide strong evidence to convince the jury of guilt. It's all about making sure nothing feels fishy in the case.
Reasonable doubt is the idea that if there's any smart reason for you to think the accused might be innocent, you should vote not guilty. It's like saying, 'I just can’t be sure.'
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which means it's their job to prove that the accused is guilty, and they have to do it beyond a reasonable doubt.
It means every person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, sort of like giving them the benefit of the doubt.