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
If the jury has even a smidgen of reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, they must return a not guilty verdict. It’s like saying, 'Better safe than sorry,' and it ensures no one is wrongly convicted.
Yes, a defendant can testify in their own defense, and doing so doesn't change their presumption of innocence. It’s as if they’re saying, 'I’m here to tell my side of the story,' while the jury keeps in mind they’re still innocent until proven guilty.
Not exactly! Reasonable doubt doesn’t mean just having less evidence; it’s about whether the evidence presented leaves you questioning the guilt of the accused. It’s like a puzzle where some pieces might seem to be missing.
It sets the stage for the trial by requiring that the jury starts out believing the defendant is innocent until evidence proves otherwise. Think of it as giving the defendant a fair shot in the game before the whistle blows.
Reasonable doubt is the level of certainty that must be reached for a jury to convict. If there's any doubt that's 'reasonable'—like a light fog in your mind—the jury should side with the defendant.
In a criminal case, the prosecution carries the burden of proof. They have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, kind of like having to prove you ate the last cookie!
The presumption of innocence means that until proven guilty, a person is considered innocent. It’s like saying everyone gets a clean slate until the evidence says otherwise.