Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
This is true, but the defence doesn't twiddle its thumbs. It at least has to poke holes in the Crown's case or there is no reasonable doubt. Defence lawyers can't just invent alternate theories and argue them. You have to present evidence that the theory might be correct.
Defendant's often don't testify. But that doesn't mean the defence leads zero evidence.
EDIT: Let's put this in less high stakes terms. The Crown shows video of the accused walking out of a store without paying for an item. The Crown has now met it's initial burden of proving the elements of a crime (theft under $5000/shoplifting). At that point the evidence is one sided and beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence can't just say "maybe the accused forgot". They need the accused in that case to take the stand and say so.
|
Well no $hit. I’m not suggesting they do.