[circlecity]

This is a fairly common tactic. They want the jury to hold the prosecution to their burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than just comparing the defense vs. prosecution case and voting on who had the better case.

[Trump.Deplorable]

In these far reaching fairy tale cases like this, I agree, this is a good tactic to use. If the prosecution can’t prove their case, you have nothing to defend yourself against.

[Okeydoker]

Wouldnt call it fairly common. More like used occasionally.

It is a risky strategy.

[bigbob]

I’m sure the closing arguments will focus like a laser on the prosecution’s burden of proof. Hung jury at least.

[outpostinmass2]

This is a fairly common tactic. They want the jury to hold the prosecution to their burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than just comparing the defense vs. prosecution case and voting on who had the better case.

---

Wouldn’t the defense at least try to sow some reasonable doubt?

[cuban leaf]

This is a fairly common tactic. They want the jury to hold the prosecution to their burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than just comparing the defense vs. prosecution case and voting on who had the better case.

---

I’m ashamed to say this, but I’m 64 and I didn’t get this concept until last year watching an episode of Suits. When the prosecution has not made their case beyond a reasonable doubt, your job is not to make your own case that you are innocent. Your job is to demonstrate that they have not made their case.

[longtermmemmory]

criminal trials are supposed to be unfair. Unfair to the prosecution because they have to remove ALL reasonable doubt.

[snarkytart]

It’s not that common, but not unusual either. I think it’s a bad choice, though. People want to hear a defense, the other side.