Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
That wasn’t the point being debated. Butterfly was arguing the defence need not put forward any evidence because of the standard of proof.
Now, in the Lucic case let’s assume the prosecution’s case is only the victim’s testimony. And assume the defence didn’t lay a glove on her in cross-examination. Pretty much the only evidence they could assert to raise a reasonable doubt after that would be from him.
It’s moot anyway. This almost certainly will never go to trial.
|
I was arguing that the defense need not
necessarily put forward any evidence because the burden of proof lies on the state. It isn't axiomatic that the mere existence of state evidence in the absence of any other evidence is sufficient for conviction.
It may be moot with respect to this particular alleged incident with Lucic, but in a general sense I don't think it is at all.