That's what some of us have been saying for three pages.....
If you can introduce reasonable doubt YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE.
Let me butt in there, a second, Blue.
I know what you mean, but for the benefit of the audience, let me point out that a defendant doesn't have to introduce reasonable doubt.
The prosecution can put on its evidence ...
The defendant and his lawyer can both sit there, mute as stumps, and not even move to scratch themselves, and ...
The jury can say to themselves, "The prosecution's case doesn't seem to make sense to me. I've got a lot of doubt about this."
Theoretically, anyway. In actual practice, the defendant's lawyer is going to stand up and argue that the prosecution's case doesn't make much sense and the jury should have a lot of doubt about this. But even then, the defendant's lawyer doesn't have to introduce anything by way of evidence.
