probably why it's not; they don't want the jury to truly understand it; they want them confused and deliberating and giving in; system is so messed up.
Where can we buy this chart? When I defended myself pro se, I made a similar chart, but drew it by hand during closing argument like I was lecturing a class.
Technical comment: every time the chart flexed it caught some glare from the overhead light which caused the camera to lose focus momentarily. It happened at least a dozen times, very distracting.
Karnage2015 No, there are plenty of other types of evidence that can be found to substantiate a guilty verdict such as trace evidence (hair fibers/fabric fibers), and forensic evidence (blood/bodily fluids), etc. There are numerous cases where there are no eyewitnesses or cameras and prosecutors have successfully brought a suspect to justice.
Anon W. Yep and that’s why before trial you have your attorney to file a motion of discovery so you all can examine the evidence and build your case around it.
...but in some cases, circumstantial evidence(hear-say and personal opinions) trump beyond reasonable doubt. Why is that? It makes believing the judicial process hard to swallow...
so if im a detective and confident I will never be able to prove an accused committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt I should not at least refuse to give bail to accused if I persist to prosecute I should continue investigations otherwise prosecution is malicious XXXXXXX
You didn't say what reasonable doubt was. You just flew right by it. How am I supposed to know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means if you can't explain what reasonable doubt means? This would have been a good way to do it, but I this is the 4th or 5th video I've watched searching for people who can explain what reasonable doubt is and what it means to go beyond it. No one can explain it. You didn't explain it. I don't think most lawyers know what it means.
Hi, I just watched the jurors in Delphi, IN convict a man of a double homicide with no physical evidence, and his confessions made after 13 months of being tortured in a prison isolation cell. The facts of that case left so much room for doubt I am here scrolling YT looking for anything at all to convince me Americans even know what RD is. Like you, this is about the 6th one I’ve come across and they all gloss over the meaning. Lawyer Jim Griffin put it like this: ‘It’s like making the most important decision of your life, but for someone else. Like buying your family home and getting all the building checks and finance done and getting to the last moment before you can’t go back.. do you have an uneasy feeling something is wrong? Do you feel the need to back out? That’s reasonable doubt.’
American juries rarely get it right. It's a pool of people who have undisclosed biases and want to feel more important to society than they are. It's a really trash system that has failed spectacularly over here.
I hope no jury member watches this and takes it seriously. It's extremely reductionistic, and this is not what "beyond" means in the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." You don't just stair step your way beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable suspicion is not enough to say whether a defendant is either guilty OR not guilty. "Reasonable" means you have a premise for concluding that the defendant is not guilty. It's not just a doubt or a possible doubt. If your rationale that the defendant is guilty (based on the evidence presented) is stronger than your premise, it's a guilty verdict. If you don't have a premise, you can't say either way, so you begin analyzing the evidence further. Don't be lazy. You need to deliberate properly.
You have gotten this wrong, the solicitor on the video is right. When you say that A (guilty) is stronger than B (non guilty) premise this is entirely false and it would only apply in Civl Cases where A must be 51% probability to win the case. The burden of proof for criminal cases is much much higher, and you would need to prove that guilty is closer to 91% or more to convict. And even in this case, the risk would be to convict 9 innocent people out of 100.
@@dk1872 I'm arguing semantics, not the quantity of perceived guilt. That is up to the jury. What should not be up to the jury is interpreting "beyond" like it's some kind of slang term. (We have case law on this already.) You are always going to be using evidence to weigh against any doubt with a premise [at different standards] as a jury member, whether by "greater weight" or "beyond a reasonable doubt." You still need to deliberate using rationale, not feelings or perceptions.
This chart needs to be posted on the wall of every jury deliberation room where beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard that must be met.
I approve this message
probably why it's not; they don't want the jury to truly understand it; they want them confused and deliberating and giving in; system is so messed up.
Lol. Damn that covered all bases. I'm going to jury trial. I know I fit I about 4 of the not guilty chances
That's a great diagram! Is there a way we can get that image?
Where can we buy this chart? When I defended myself pro se, I made a similar chart, but drew it by hand during closing argument like I was lecturing a class.
Technical comment: every time the chart flexed it caught some glare from the overhead light which caused the camera to lose focus momentarily. It happened at least a dozen times, very distracting.
Thank you so much
Thank you
Excellent
Excellent! I love it! Please also tell me where "balance of probability" comes into play in this context.
Thank you... Just saved me a question on exam lol
Does this change alot in different states?
No
Eye witness testimony for felony counts as tangible evidence right ?
Your camera keeps focusing
Thanks for facts tho
Is qualified amunity gonna change may 15th 2020
Doesn't this mean that all criminal cases where there aren't witnesses or a video recorded crime happening should yield a Not Guilty Verdict?
Karnage2015 No, there are plenty of other types of evidence that can be found to substantiate a guilty verdict such as trace evidence (hair fibers/fabric fibers), and forensic evidence (blood/bodily fluids), etc. There are numerous cases where there are no eyewitnesses or cameras and prosecutors have successfully brought a suspect to justice.
Anon W. Yep and that’s why before trial you have your attorney to file a motion of discovery so you all can examine the evidence and build your case around it.
wtf is up with the focus?
...but in some cases, circumstantial evidence(hear-say and personal opinions) trump beyond reasonable doubt. Why is that? It makes believing the judicial process hard to swallow...
EXACTLY 🎯🎯🎯@@BrianGallas
Beyond reasonable doubt that a Neanderthal is in charge of the focus in this video. It could’ve been such a great video too!!
Haha damn
so
if im a detective
and confident I will never be able to prove
an accused committed a crime
beyond a reasonable doubt
I should not at least refuse to give bail to accused
if I persist to prosecute
I should continue investigations
otherwise
prosecution is malicious
XXXXXXX
wtf is this focus
"I'm convinced you did it. The evidence is clear. Not guilty." Huh???
"Almost certainly..."
Talk about your mother of all oxymorons.
You didn't say what reasonable doubt was. You just flew right by it. How am I supposed to know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means if you can't explain what reasonable doubt means?
This would have been a good way to do it, but I this is the 4th or 5th video I've watched searching for people who can explain what reasonable doubt is and what it means to go beyond it. No one can explain it. You didn't explain it. I don't think most lawyers know what it means.
Hi, I just watched the jurors in Delphi, IN convict a man of a double homicide with no physical evidence, and his confessions made after 13 months of being tortured in a prison isolation cell. The facts of that case left so much room for doubt I am here scrolling YT looking for anything at all to convince me Americans even know what RD is. Like you, this is about the 6th one I’ve come across and they all gloss over the meaning.
Lawyer Jim Griffin put it like this: ‘It’s like making the most important decision of your life, but for someone else. Like buying your family home and getting all the building checks and finance done and getting to the last moment before you can’t go back.. do you have an uneasy feeling something is wrong? Do you feel the need to back out? That’s reasonable doubt.’
Thumbs down for the terrible focus.
What Verdict a Jury 'Must' render is up to the Jury. Clear & Convincing looks really bad for the Defendant =)
American juries rarely get it right.
It's a pool of people who have undisclosed biases and want to feel more important to society than they are.
It's a really trash system that has failed spectacularly over here.
Does the jury believe in the halo effect.meaning judging the victim as a credibility witness not by testimony but by the looks and skin color
is this made to suggest or propagate the notion that anyone charged cannot possibly be convicted that's ridiculous
Do it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dumbest comment ever
Will u come to albany and defend?
I hope no jury member watches this and takes it seriously. It's extremely reductionistic, and this is not what "beyond" means in the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." You don't just stair step your way beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable suspicion is not enough to say whether a defendant is either guilty OR not guilty. "Reasonable" means you have a premise for concluding that the defendant is not guilty. It's not just a doubt or a possible doubt. If your rationale that the defendant is guilty (based on the evidence presented) is stronger than your premise, it's a guilty verdict. If you don't have a premise, you can't say either way, so you begin analyzing the evidence further. Don't be lazy. You need to deliberate properly.
You have gotten this wrong, the solicitor on the video is right. When you say that A (guilty) is stronger than B (non guilty) premise this is entirely false and it would only apply in Civl Cases where A must be 51% probability to win the case. The burden of proof for criminal cases is much much higher, and you would need to prove that guilty is closer to 91% or more to convict. And even in this case, the risk would be to convict 9 innocent people out of 100.
Dumbest untrue comment ever
@@dk1872 I'm arguing semantics, not the quantity of perceived guilt. That is up to the jury. What should not be up to the jury is interpreting "beyond" like it's some kind of slang term. (We have case law on this already.) You are always going to be using evidence to weigh against any doubt with a premise [at different standards] as a jury member, whether by "greater weight" or "beyond a reasonable doubt." You still need to deliberate using rationale, not feelings or perceptions.
get a new camera operator...