If there is something that is going to be presented to the court of appeal there, it should at least contain a challenge to the competency of the lower court because of how its acquittal verdict clearly shows that. The court of appeal needs to be shown that. It also needs to be told even if we assume a reasonable layman may see reasonable doubt in the intentional killing of the victim targeting her in her identity, a professional in the field, especially a criminal court judge, would be prevented from such mistake by recognizing how taking reasonable doubt to this level would render the judicial system useless. Indeed, if the allegations of the defendant here can make a reasonable doubt that he shot that girl targeting her then close the courts and open ice cream shops instead. Why bother? How many of all cases that ended with conviction to a defendant on this whole planet were not open to doubts at this level?
No comments:
Post a Comment