Quote:
Originally Posted by AOEforme
I don't think any sane person would disagree with you on this point. From my perspective, there is no clear picture of who is being wrongfully accused. After all, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he is guilty and the length of the SCOTUS debate alone makes me think they have failed to do so.
|
It is the jury that has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, not SCOTUS. The role of an appellate court is not to re-examine the evidence, but to ensure that a trial was fair (in terms of constitutional rights, proper legal procedure, etc.) and free of error that might have prejudiced the defendant. While an appellate court can find the there was not evidence from which a reasonable jury could have determined guilt, an appellate court cannot substitute its view of the evidence for the jury's.
Threaded Mode
