If a defendant is guilty, he may fight hard to try to create reasonable doubt (e.g. OJ Simpson).
If a defendant is innocent, he had better fight like heck to "prove his innocence". In the absence of very hard facts to prove his innocence, (in which case he probably wouldn't be charged in the first place), the best he can do is build a good case of reasonable doubt for the jury to base their decision on.
I wish some of you folks would stop getting into such stupid arguments over semantics, just for the sake of arguing.
Last edited by nifty-two-fifty; 01/02/16.
Nifty-250
"If you don't know where you're going, you may wind up somewhere else". Yogi Berra
