On the surface, it can appear that a criminal defence lawyer has it simple. The lawyer, not the competition, bears the burden of proving guilt. Representing those convicted of a crime, on the other hand, necessitates preparation and study. The objective is to demonstrate that there is a fair doubt about the client’s guilt. This can be just as complicated at times. For more details click Law Firm.
What does this imply?
A criminal defence lawyer’s aim is to either prove his or her client’s innocence or to create a reasonable doubt. If an individual is innocent of a crime, there should be plenty of evidence to support this. All proof would clearly point to a person’s guilt if they were guilty. The issue is that there are very few clear cases. There are many variables that go into assessing someone else’s guilt.
The idea that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is often stressed to juries. They cannot find in support of the prosecution if there is any doubt or unbelief that the person accused is guilty. A criminal defence lawyer searches for various ways to prove that there is fair doubt about the case. He requires the jury to think twice about convicting the defendant.
How does one create fair doubt?
One of the most common ways for a criminal defence attorney to create a reasonable doubt is to show that the crime may have been committed by someone else. A juror must presume that someone else was involved if the defendant was in another location at the time of the crime. Reasonable doubt is created when there is evidence that someone else was present in the crime scene and their existence cannot be clarified.
Since there is a broad variety of theories accepted as a definition for reasonable doubt, this is not always straightforward to set up for the jurors. The aim is to create as many scenarios or instances as possible in which another individual or group may have committed the crime. A single piece of evidence or a single scenario could not be sufficient to persuade the jury.