(11-01-2018, 10:27 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Not how it works. Prosecution has to prove that she did. Google "burden of proof."
Face please, I’m not stupid. I know the prosecutors must prove guilt. The verdict depends on what the judge / jury believes to be true (based on evidence). I know doubts should benefit the accused etc. The prosecution would probably convince the court, just as Grimm convinced the viewers of the series (at least most of them). Evidence: a DVD with Grimm Season 4. In my world there is no doubt.
(11-01-2018, 11:01 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: If we're throwing lawyers into the discussion? Then yes, what we saw doesn't count. How many times have you seen news reports about juries acquitting people for things you actually saw them do on video?
There are three separate topics being mixed up here: what people did, what they can be charged with and what a jury would be likely to convict them for. The chances of all three being the same thing are practically non-existent.
This is a discussion about Grimm, not about whether the justice system is unable to reach a correct and fair ruling. You usually present reasonable arguments, but this is nitpicking.