Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six
No physical evidence where the only thing the trier of fact has to go on is a "he said she said" should never result in a conviction. Absent some strange and important context or surrounding circumstance, there is always going to be reasonable doubt where you have two conflicting stories and neither is corroborated.
|
For those curious, how credibility works in criminal trials (in Canada) where there is no evidence aside from the testimony of the complainant and the accused is governed by the "W.(D.)" test:
First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.
Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.
Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.