Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S
Ok so how would the following be prosecuted without eyewitnesses.
People driving through red-lights.
Someone attacking someone else but is stopped before any lasting injury is caused.
Someone seen breaking into a building and caught inside.
etc. etc.
You quite clearly haven't given your argument any thought whatsoever. In your world there would be no point in anyone going to court and giving evidence as you don't think they can be trusted.
|
If there is just ONE witness,then no,that shouldn't be sufficient for conviction... after all,it's statement against statement,and that is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That aside,i think the judge was right to throw the case out.There was insufficient evidence,and if that's the case,the defendant should be acquitted.period.