no he doesn’t need to prove it, in a criminal trial in most countries, the prosecution has the burden of proof; in the US “beyond a reasonable doubt”
According to legal advice:
To prove a car accident was not intentional in court, you would need to present evidence demonstrating that your actions at the time of the crash were not deliberate, including factors like: witness testimonies, police reports, vehicle damage analysis, your driving record, medical records, and expert testimony to explain the circumstances leading to the accident, highlighting any distractions, mechanical failures, or unexpected road conditions that could have contributed to the crash.
Either way, he didn’t accidentally shoot an unarmed man in the back… so this entire whatabout is irrelevant.
What context was this legal advice given in? This may be advice for a civil lawsuit too?
In any case it is of course true that it is good to be able to present evidence in one’s favor in criminal court, but that is to establish that there is reasonable doubt, not because the defendant has the burden of proof.
It’s irrelevant. We’re not talking about an accident. We’re talking about an intent to kill. He had a manifesto, there are witnesses… He murdered a man.
If it were a gun or a car. It’s irrelevant.
I’m not getting trapped up in semantics.
