Quote:
Originally Posted by Banshee
Burden of proof is higher for capital murder than that of a life sentence. If the prosecution couldn't make that burden, they should have went for the lesser. If you can't prove she killed her daughter, how can you prove AND convict a person for aggrevated child abuse and aggrivated manslaughter of a child?
|
No, the burden of proof is not any higher. FYI, not all those convicted of capital murder get death, just being convicted of it is not an automatic death penalty.
And they did go for lesser charges as well, so I have no idea why you say they should have went for lesser charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banshee
True...but again, unless you have specific trace evidence, a cadaver dog hitting on the car and yard AND her father testifying is circumstantial evidence WITHOUT evidence. You can't convict someone of capital murder with circumstantial evidence.
|
So now you raise the bar.
And you can get a conviction with just circumstantial evidence on ANY charge. Forensics (like DNA) and ballistics are circumstantial evidence. We've even executed people using just circumstantial evidence, Ted Bundy is a good example.