shotgun09
'Certified' Boomer
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,286
- Reaction score
- 44,775
TO me this case could be used in the Chapter on Reasonable Doubt 101 in law classes. I guess what is up for interpretation is "reasonable" because clearly there is doubt. Not much in closing to make this concept crystal clear to jurors who may have never considered it before. We as trial watchers have a good idea of what it means but probably some jurors do not.
I just watched 12 Angry Men last night. The movie clearly shows how reasonable doubt can come into play. Not one bit of " conspiracy" was needed. Just doubt.
This case? LOADED with reasonable doubt. IMO
ETA: I will start with the fact that the crime scene was never secured. Because CPD doesn't do crime scenes in the snow.....