an accused is not required to produce evidence in his defense until after the prosecution has established his guilt prima facie. By prima facie we mean that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, standing alone, that is without any evidence adduced by the accused, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The judge is tasked to determine whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient, and only until the judge rules in the affirmative is the accused required to present evidence in his defense.
This is a universal rule in all civilized societies, the essence of due process. Nobody is required to present evidence in his defense if in the first place there is no evidence establishing his guilt prima facie.
As a lawyer I find the clamor for Pacquiao to "prove his innocence" revolting to my sense of justice. He should not be required to present evidence in his defense if there is not a single iota of evidence showing his guilt. the people clamoring for him to "defend himself", are saying, in effect, that his guilt has been established on the mere say so of a convicted felon by the name of Mayweather Sr. Those who do have their own agenda for doing so, and I hope the rest of the boxing world will see through what they are doing.
This is a universal rule in all civilized societies, the essence of due process. Nobody is required to present evidence in his defense if in the first place there is no evidence establishing his guilt prima facie.
As a lawyer I find the clamor for Pacquiao to "prove his innocence" revolting to my sense of justice. He should not be required to present evidence in his defense if there is not a single iota of evidence showing his guilt. the people clamoring for him to "defend himself", are saying, in effect, that his guilt has been established on the mere say so of a convicted felon by the name of Mayweather Sr. Those who do have their own agenda for doing so, and I hope the rest of the boxing world will see through what they are doing.
Comment