Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Can a DU legal expert explain to me... [View all]Ms. Toad
(38,951 posts)43. So?
I was responding to a discussion of concerns raised by experts - and a question as to why it even matters.
My response was, essentially, when it is an element of the crime you have to prove it to a jury.
I have not opined one bit on whether the prosecution can prove it - or who the jury will believe. My contributions in this thread are solely about process: What has to be proven, how it can be proven, why his knowledge matters under the law, subjective v. objective knowledge, circumstantial v. direct evidence.
Whether the prosecution feels they can prove it (a matter on which I have not opined) doesn't alter the process (all I have opined on) one bit.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No. You can't just instruct the jury as to what a reasonable person would have believed.
Ms. Toad
Jul 2023
#9
The mens rea of the crime is ALWAYS subjective - what the accused actually knew.
Ms. Toad
Jul 2023
#18
He lies that is evident. It will be all the evidence of is his lies that will make it easy to prove
boston bean
Jul 2023
#47
Go ahead and up willful ignorance or blindness too; there are other terms for it.
Hortensis
Jul 2023
#33