0
What else can I help you with?
What is the defense to prosecution for the accused individual in this case?
The defense for the accused individual in this case is that they did not commit the crime they are being charged with. They may argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What were two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the middle ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the Early Middle Ages.?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the Early Middle Ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were two methods for deciding the guilt of innocence of accused criminals in the Early method ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were two methods of deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the Early Middle Ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were two methods for deciding the guilt or the innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were the two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early Middle Ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What were two method for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages?
Two methods were: - trial by ordeal, in which the accused had to pass a dangerous test, like thrown into a well, and - trial by combat, in which he had to fight to prove his innocence. The two methods for deciding the guilt or innocence of accused criminals in the early middle ages were trial by combat or ordeal.
What is the way of determining guilt or innocence in the midde ages?
In the Middle Ages, guilt or innocence was often determined through trial by combat, trial by ordeal, or trial by jury. Trial by combat involved the accused and the accuser fighting to prove innocence or guilt. Trial by ordeal involved subjecting the accused to a painful or dangerous physical test believed to be controlled by a higher power. Trial by jury involved a group of people deliberating and deciding on the guilt or innocence of the accused based on evidence presented.
Should a person be accused of a crime even though he or she is not yet proven guilty or innocent?
People should be accused of crimes if there is some substantial evidence that they have committed them. You do not have to be proven guilty in order to be accused, because if a person is not accused, there won't be a trial, and there will therefore be no opportunity to prove either guilt or innocence in a legal sense.
What is the difference between guilty or not guilty?
Guilty means that a person admits to committing the crime they were accused of. Not guilty means that a person denies committing the crime and the prosecution must prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
