He told them that he was comitting crimes and all that
Thomas McKay did not prove Louis Riel guilty. Louis Riel was found guilty of treason by a jury for leading the North-West Rebellion in Canada in 1885. McKay was not involved in proving Riel's guilt; instead, the trial was presided over by a judge and jury.
When the accused states that they are guilty, they are admitting to committing the crime they have been charged with. If they plead not guilty, it means they are denying the charges against them and the case will proceed to trial where the prosecution will have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If an accused person had to prove their innocence, it would reverse the burden of proof, which is currently on the prosecution. This would likely lead to an increase in wrongful convictions, as it can be challenging for individuals to prove a negative (their innocence). It would also undermine the presumption of innocence, a fundamental principle in our legal system.
This is a standard of proof needed in a court of law. You must prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty for them to be convicted. Here are a couple of sentences.Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in a court.Have you proved beyond reasonable doubt that my client is guilty?
Louis Riel was not typically referred to as a coward; however, some critics accused him of cowardice or indecisiveness for fleeing during the Red River Resistance in 1869. Riel believed that his exit was necessary to ensure the safety of his followers and to continue his fight against the Canadian government's oppressive policies.
The prosecution's role in a trial is to present evidence and arguments to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They also cross-examine witnesses presented by the defense and advocate for a guilty verdict. Ultimately, their goal is to secure a conviction for the crimes the defendant is accused of.
(in the US) That is the beauty of the US Legal System. You do NOT have to prove that you are not guilty, the prosecution must prove that you ARE guilty.
Yes.
not to feel guilty and to find evidence to prove you are guilty
Yes but the cops will have to prove them guilty
The Girondins didn't want or have to prove the royal family guilty. Everybody accepted the guilt of the king and queen as a fact after their flight to Varennes, in which they tried to flee France into Austria so that they could use foreign assistance to attack the revolutionary government. In fact, the Girondins were the people who were against King Louis XVI's execution. The Girondins wanted the king to be exiled. It was the Jacobins who got Louis executed.
Guilty of what? True, he had no authority from the French government to sell America the Louisiana Purchase, but I'm sure the statute of limitations has run out by now! And as Thomas Jefferson had no authority to buy it, I suppose both nations are even!
For a person to be guilty, someone has to prove with supportive reasons that the person did something wrong.
How can you prove that you WERE involved!!!??? Admit it when questioned by law enforcement and plead guilty when arraigned.
They didn't if you were charged you were guilty. The Trial was a farce and the only way to not be declared guilty was to refuse to go to trial.
Don't understand what is meant by the question. THAT's what prosecutors DO! Their job is to attempt to prove that the defendant IS guilty, and that his not guilty plea is a lie.
If the police and the prosecuting attorney can't prove you are guilty the case gets thrown out, innocent until proven guilty. As far as your written statement, you would have to explain some reason why you would lie (you were coerced by the police, drunk, someone paid you)
Only Ryan knows the answer. The prosecution could not prove him guilty, but a jury found him guilty anyway.