Sussman verdict flow chat. Easy to understand even for the epic doomers!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (122)
sorted by:
I’m sorry, this chart isn’t correct for anyone who is a lawyer and understands a trial in the context of our criminal justice system.
An acquittal is a finding by the jurors that the government did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn’t mean the jury believed or found that the FBI actively conspired in a fraud, or even that they believe Sussman DIDN’T lie, as counterintuitive as that sounds. Let me explain.
The standard for criminal guilty is beyond a reasonable doubt. This means more than a mere suspicion - let’s say it means you have to be 85% sure that the defendant committed the crime based on the evidence (though there is not an actual percentage associated with the standard).
Now compare that to the civil standard for liability - that is was more likely than not that the defendant was liable, which we can put an actual percentage on - anything greater than 50%.
What this means is that a juror could have actually thought that Sussman did in fact lie to the FBI, let’s say this juror was 60% sure, but ultimately determined that there was a reasonable doubt - the evidence didn’t quite prove with 85% certainty that Sussman did.
That pretty much makes the chart nonsensical - juries are not making the binary decisions as set out in the chart. There are real world examples of this - Michael Jackson being found civilly liable ad a pedo, but acquitted criminally on essentially the same evidence is one example that comes to mind.
Not trying to doom, just a lawfag with clear eyes.