How would you decide

[punisher73]

I was sitting in court today on a murder trial and the judge gave an interesting hypothetical question.

The defendant before you is charged with premeditated murder. The prosecution gives the opening statement and so does the defense. Then both of them give their closing arguments of what happened. No other witnesses or evidence are presented by either side. How would you decide?

1) Guilty
2) Not Guilty
3) Couldn't decide without hearing witness testimony and evidence


(didn't know how to do this as a poll)

 

[Flatlander]

Not guilty. Having no evidence leave a heaping bunch of reasonable doubt.

 

[kenpo tiger]

I agree with Dan.

 

[MA-Caver]

I was sitting in court today on a murder trial and the judge gave an interesting hypothetical question.

The defendant before you is charged with premeditated murder. The prosecution gives the opening statement and so does the defense. Then both of them give their closing arguments of what happened. No other witnesses or evidence are presented by either side. How would you decide?

1) Guilty
2) Not Guilty
3) Couldn't decide without hearing witness testimony and evidence
(didn't know how to do this as a poll)

Go to FAQ and that should tell ya how to create a poll.

The fact that the prosecutor doesn't have any witnesses or evidence then how can he dare to bring that to court expecting a verdict? It's all hearsay unless it was proven with evidence and witnesses by the prosecution that the accused committed the crime or vice-versa with the defense.
I'd say #3 because the last time I looked that's how we did things in this country. It's called... umm, err...wait a second I got it... umm, no don't tell me... uhhh, .... oh yeah! A fair trail! :uhyeah:

 

[Xequat]

Yeah, I don't think a case like that would ever make it to trial, especially with the double jeopardy idea. The prosecution, if they really believe that this person committed the crime, would wait until they had some evidence before bringing it to trial because they know they'd lose due to reasonable doubt. They wouldn't waste an opportunity to try this person with evidence on a half-cocked accusation. What if evidence turns up later? Too late, the trial's over and the killer has already been cleared. But if someone were to bring it to a jury trial, I'd have to hear the statements and think about it to be sure, but I'd quite probably say reasonable doubt prevails and give a not guilty verdict.

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

I'm always for the defendant when called to jury duty. They are innocent until proven guilty!

 

[shesulsa]

I concur - innocent until proven guilty.

 

[punisher73]

Congrats to sheulsa and Mr. Harbers--that was the answer I was looking for. Just a simple "not guilty" because they are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

Some of the other things were on target, such as the heresay, etc. but it over complicates things and rationalizes why they are not guilty. Many people when asked this question assume that it's the 3rd option and that you can't say/decide without knowing the facts of the case.

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

Why Punisher73, you must be a Free Born American!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Sidebar

Go to FAQ and that should tell ya how to create a poll.

Only supporting members can create a poll.