Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Mr. Stanley shot someone in the head at close range. One could easily infer intent to harm or kill from that action alone. What more would you expect in a typical murder charge? Accused persons seldom announce or admit to their intention to harm or kill the victim.
|
The Crown didn’t present any evidence that spoke to intent though. Inference is not enough (thankfully)
As much as it seems that people hate it, the burden of proof is not on the accused. It is up to the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
So in this case the Crown either had evidence to support intent (and a 2nd degree murder charge), and chose not to present it or they didn’t have that evidence but got forced into charging it by public pressure. Either way, Stanley explained his actions, the Crown had no evidence/chose not to rebut and the jury acted correctly.
Considering that pretty much every witness the crown called bolstered reasonable doubt, I’d say that they went in unprepared because of external pressure to take action