doesn't have to prove he was there, just provide a reasonable doubt as to guilt. It's more evidence than there must have been to claim he was at the site of the crime at that time.
There was an eyewitness who identified him as being at the scene of the murder. That eyewitness ended up being wrong, but that's strong evidence that he committed the murder. Much stronger evidence than a ticket stub that doesn't show he was actually at a baseball game
Being wrong seems like terrible evidence, I dunno about you. Maybe "eyewitness" testimony is not reliable? I can say I saw you do whatever, it's just my word against yours.
Obviously they didn't realize the witness was wrong until later on?
Do you think we should discredit all eyewitness testimony? If so, say goodbye to the vast majority of assault, domestic violence, and sex crime convictions. Those tend to not have physical evidence, and rely on he said/she said.
Assault doesn't mean you were severely injured. Most statutes require physical harm or attempted physical harm. If I slapped you, that would be assault. But there may not be any other evidence that I slapped you.
Same for sexual assault. Most victims do not report the assault immediately, especially children. There might not be any physical evidence, but that doesn't mean a crime did not occur.
I'm well aware that convictions do not guarantee guilt. I'm also well aware that many guilty people are never charged, or may not be convicted based on the evidence allowed in at trial
I wouldn't say it's a reasonable defense, but the burden of proof is on the state, not the defendant. If he says "I wasn't there." Or "I didn't do it." Then it's enough without evidence stating otherwise.
An alibi that's not airtight isn't going to protect you, but you don't need one unless the prosecutor has evidence that it was you. The fact that he was put in jail when he didn't do it is disgusting, because it means that there was plenty of reasonable doubt there to be dug up.
If the prosecutor doesn't have enough to prove that it was you, then there is reasonable doubt. I would love to know more about what evidence they had that supposedly was so damning that people would simply put an innocent man in jail instead of doing their part as members of the jury.
21
u/RoxieMoxie420 1d ago
doesn't have to prove he was there, just provide a reasonable doubt as to guilt. It's more evidence than there must have been to claim he was at the site of the crime at that time.