Argumentative Analysis: Riots
Eric Nelson: May it please the Court, counsel, Mr. Chauvin, members of the jury. We want to take this opportunity first to thank each and every one of you for your service, your diligence, and your attention to this matter.
We all recognize the disruption that jury service places on your personal and professional lives, link in the case of this magnitude and direction. And so on behalf of Mr. Chauvin, I want to thank each and every one of you for your attention and service to this jury. The state has an opportunity to rebut my statement AArgumentative this. Before I begin my review of the evidence in this case, I would like Argumentative Analysis: Riots address Argumentative Analysis: Riots very crucial points of law, and they were touched on by the state, the presumption of innocence, and what proof beyond a reasonable doubt means. The presumption of innocence, the defendant is presumed innocent.
And this presumption remains with him throughout the course of the trial, the presentation of the evidence, throughout the course of your deliberations until and unless the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why We Crave Horror Movies by Stephen King - Analysis Essay
The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. We talked about this in jury selection. We talked about the starting point. He starts at the Argumentative Analysis: Riots of innocence. Eric Nelson: Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.
It does not mean a fanciful or capricious doubt, nor does it mean beyond all possibility of doubt. The preponderance of the evidence is the first and lowest standard. Clear and convincing evidence is the next standard.
And the third standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And the way we lawyers sometimes illustrate what these three standards mean is through the scales of read article. The scales of justice equally balanced. That is the burden of Argumentative Analysis: Riots that the state has in that type of a case.
They have to just ever so slightly convince the finder of fact that their evidence supports their action. The next standard is clear and convincing evidence. It is clear evidence and it convinces you, the finder of fact, that the action is correct. This is the standard of proof that is used if the state wants to take away your children, clear and convincing evidence.
It tips the scales more in one … The favor of one party over the other. Eric Nelson: The highest standard in this country is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Frances Ellen Watkins's Use Of Slavery In The Civil War
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Essentially, what the state has to convince you is that the evidence in this case completely eliminates any reasonable doubt. Or in other words, leaving only unreasonable doubt.]
I am sorry, that has interfered... But this theme is very close to me. Write in PM.
What interesting message
I hope, you will find the correct decision.
You have hit the mark. In it something is and it is good idea. I support you.
I am sorry, that I interfere, but you could not paint little bit more in detail.