Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Wow, so you'd impose a burden on the defense that not only would they have to prove innocence rather than keep the other side from proving guilt, but further, you'd require them to prove someone else did it?
And with what defendant's crime lab and investigative force would they do this magic you speak of?
|
Christiangirl already said she doesn't know much about the law.
Christiangirl, being found not guilty does not mean you were found innocent and it does not require proof that someone else did it. The point is whether or not the evidence can convict YOU of doing it. If there's evidence that someone else and someone in particular did it, okay I guess, but generally speaking a separate trial would have to delve much further into that.
****
On this morning's news, a legal expert was explaining the jury's decision. He said that a mother (I assume he also meant parent, in general) is supposed to protect her children. But this isn't about mother vs. child and anger over a supposed bad parent. This was the state vs. Casey Anthony and the evidence just wasn't there to convict.
She was found guilty of 4 misdemeanor counts that could carry a sentence of 1-4 years each (I think that's what was stated). I wonder if she'll receive any prison time.
The news was also criticizing Casey Anthony's smile and celebration as though she should have been crying or had a blank face because her daughter is still dead. Perhaps, perhaps not. Anthony's parents supposedly had a blank face and left the courtroom before the media frenzy began.
But I thought I might be wrong since I saw that on Double Jeopardy. The vast majority of my law knowledge comes from movies so I really hoped that Ashley Judd told me something inaccurate.
Hybrid Mode
