I have been thinking about this : if it takes millions of pounds to convict someone, isn’t that reasonable doubt?
In long running cases, there are often complaints about the cost.
I say that if it costs millions of pounds and many years to get a conviction, the evidence must be very thin indeed.
That’s not to say that every case of injustice is a big, expensive trial.
The South African authorities just announced more than 100 witnesses for Oscar Pistorius’ trial.
David Camm is being tried for a third time.
The Jodi Arias trial is incomplete, after five years, millions of pounds and three verdicts.
Amanda Knox is being tried for the third time.
All are innocent in my view (at least of the serious charges) and perhaps we need look no further.
Of course there are many other clues – lack of any discernible motive, prosecution changing it’s theory, corruption, lying detectives, corrupt experts, accusations of witch-craft. But perhaps we should look no further.
How about limiting prosecution costs to $1,000,000? 15 witnesses?
Cross examination of defendant to 20 questions? Or at least not more than 1 day?
If more is needed, that’s reasonable doubt.
Note: there were more than 400 juror questions for Jodi Arias. Is that reasonable?
And many, many more questions from the prosecutor, asked for days on end.
At the end of it, the prosecution falsely claimed she lied about returning a kerosene can to Walmart.