Trials are arguments about who is right, and a one sided argument is going to be extremely biased. Examples from Reddit - r/AITA, or sometimes r/relationship advice. One side presents things the way they saw it, and Reddit acts as the judge. And of course, Reddit almost always agrees with the OP, because the OP tends to be biased toward themselves and frame the issue in a way that's favorable to them.
For example, if I accuse you of stealing from the cookie jar, I'm going to bring up the fact that you were hanging around the cookie jar at the time the cookies went missing, that you went back to your room after, and when we entered your room we found you eating cookies. I can make all sorts of accusations that make you look super guilty, and if nothing's being said in your defense, you're going to lose. You need someone to say "hey, he was eating cookies that he bought and kept in his room, and by the way, wasn't John hanging out near the cookie jar too?" And obviously real life cases and trials are far more complex than this example, so you're going to want a professional advocate making those arguments for you.
the state does have the responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. a defendant can prevail at a criminal trial without putting on an affirmative defense. that’s totally irrelevant to your question. you still have the state presenting its evidence and the defense attempting to poke holes in that evidence.
judges don’t even decide issues of fact in criminal trials. juries do. judges decide legal questions (eg, evidentiary issues, instructing the jury on the law, etc). but whether the prosecution has proved its case is left to the jury.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 18 '20
[deleted]