While our legal system is based on the theory that the truth is most likely to
be found by having strong advocates on both sides of the argument, in criminal
cases, the balance is not intended to be equal. First, the prosecutor;s mandate
is to seek justice not convictions, while the defense is to represent the client
"zealously within the bounds of the law." Second, regardless of the
fact that it may result in serious injustice, we have adopted "proof beyond
a reasonable doubt" as the standard for evidence in criminal cases. All the
the news on this case seems to deal with gray areas. What happened in the
scuffle? Who was screaming? How close were the parties when the shot was fired?
Were the head injuries sufficient to show that the defendant reasonably felt
endangered to the point where deadly force was justified? The hair-splitting
subtlety of these issues tells me that there is a reasonable doubt. Regardless
of what really happened, heaven help us if we start convicting people on
hair-splitting, politics, and emotion.
It is based on evidence and what the law interpreted in this incident regarding
the evidence. This is NOT a Rodney King kind of case.
Who cares what the EVIDENCE says? The court's decision should be based on
EMOTION, and with great deference to the possibility that some people in the
community may be upset if the defendant is NOT found guilty (even if the
evidence doesn't prove he is guilty).The possibility of racial
protests following the trial should be their greatest concern.Just
kidding of course.The criteria for conviction in THIS trial should
be the same burden of proof as in every murder trial. PROOF beyond a
reasonable doubt that he is guilty of murder.If not PROVEN guilty of
the charges... he is innocent (the whole "innocent until proven guilty"