This is not how the judicial system works:
” When a juror begins a trial they are to have a presumption of innocence for the defendant. After the State finishes their case, a juror, as in this case, then concludes the person is guilty. Then the defense comes in and presents their case. After the defense is finished and closing arguments are completed, a juror (jury) still believes a person is guilty, the defense did not provide reasonable doubt at a level sufficient to acquit the defendant.”
It is up to the PROSECUTION to prove their case...ALL THE DEFENSE HAS TO DO IS TO PRESENT SOME REASONABLE DOUBT.
The defense doesn’t have to PROVE anything.
Who killed the child?
“ALL THE DEFENSE HAS TO DO IS TO PRESENT SOME REASONABLE DOUBT.”
The defense will always be able to hire a so called expert to dispute the evidence. So in your opinion all murderers should be free if there wasn’t a witness or the murder on TV.
Which is EXACTLY what I said and how the system works.
If a juror goes into a trial, as they are to do, with a presumption of innocence, believes the evidence is strong enough to prove guilt after the State has placed their case and still believes in that guilt after the defense is finished, the defense did not raise reasonable doubt to the point the person should be acquitted.
That is exactly, at the very basic, how our system of law if supposed to work.