Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I totally get you.This is one of the hundred times I feel the loss of Dominick Dunne---he of the Power, Privilege, and Justice series.
Why on earth would anyone do that? Hope? Planning?
Are there any coincidences with this guy?
Will he even be able to get into NZ, I wonder?
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new...aracter-and-identity/good-character-residence
This is one of the hundred times I feel the loss of Dominick Dunne---he of the Power, Privilege, and Justice series.
Will he even be able to get into NZ, I wonder?
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new...aracter-and-identity/good-character-residence
Will he even be able to get into NZ, I wonder?
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new...aracter-and-identity/good-character-residence
It is not a scientific term or even one of art. It has an ordinary meaning as each Juror approaches that ultimate question. Every Juror will have their own idea of what is "reasonable." "Has the Crown proven guilt to me beyond all reasonable doubt that I have." End of the day, here in Australia, all 12 have to agree what that reasonable doubt is, not the Judge, or anyone else.A reasonable doubt is such a doubt as you, the jury, consider to be reasonable on a consideration of the evidence. It is therefore for you, and each of you, to say whether you have a doubt you consider reasonable. If at the end of your deliberation you, as reasonable persons, have such a doubt about the guilt of the defendant, the charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Question: If I steal a car and there is not enough evidence to convinct me of stealing the car, am I innocent of stealing it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No. You are presumed innocent. Then you are either guilty or not guilty, once you have been tried. Never are you actually just plain old 'innocent'.
Ain't nobody got time for that! Ain't that the truth!
Double jeopardy laws seem like they come from another time and place. When you consider forensic evidence can be retroactively applied as new techniques are developed, and the possibility of previously reluctant witnesses coming forward years later...it seems old-fashioned. People change and want to come clean. Look at that case in Kalangur, Queensland. Real cold case. One or two people who went through a complete change of heart over time and were finally ready to talk.
Nobody wants to go through another trial. It's expensive, that's the main thing. That OJ trial. What a farce.
Exactly.
Why some people don't get this, I'll never know.
If you flip that to this - If you do not steal a car, and you are charged and then found not guilty, are you not as innocent as you were before you were charged?If I steal a car and there is not enough evidence to convinct me of stealing the car, am I innocent of stealing it?