Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny199r
I've been a prosecutor and defence lawyer.
All the defence needs is a reasonable doubt. That means if the judge feels 99% certain he's guilty, that's an acquittal. Whether that means they were lucky enough to draw the judge that always acquits if judge alone(there are some judges that convict after trial maybe 10% of the time), a few dummies on the jury if a jury trial, or some of the complainants just make honest mistakes testifying which makes them look a bit dishonest.
Especially with all the money that he's paying her, I'm sure she'll dig something up to try to impeach their credibility.
There are no slam dunks in sexual assault cases, none. A lot of very good crown prosecutors in my office when I was in Alberta were like 1/10 or 2/20 in securing sexual assault convictions after trial. It was almost a running joke. When you got a sexual assault conviction it was usually because the defence lawyer was inexperienced and did a ####ty job.
The test that a judge must use when it's he said vs she said and no physical evidence (like pictures or Dan) makes it very difficult to convict when the accused gets on the stand and is very smooth and denies doing anything wrong and has no inconsistencies in his evidence. The judge basically says "I can't be sure he really did it". Of course the judge can't be sure, they weren't there, no one was!
I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit if he is acquitted on all counts.
|
She got Micheal Bryant aquitted and there was even video evidence of him ramming a cyclist with his car:
https://nowtoronto.com/news/exclusiv...of-darcy-alla/