He isn’t. There is no plea of innocence in the US system. He pled not guilty. There’s plenty of daylight between innocence and not being guilty as charged.
He pled not guilty. You don’t plead innocence in court.
He has to prove that he is not guilty of the case brought by the prosecution. That’s what not guilty means. He only has to disprove the specifics of the case brought against him.
Its the procetutor’s job to prove, it is the defendant’s job to disprove.
Pleading not guilty is the right choice. Either his lawyers think he’s not guilty, and this plea lets them beat the charges, or he is guilty and this plea delays the inevitable.
If he pled guilty that would skip the main part of the trial and go straight to sentencing. Pleading guilty is rarely a good idea unless you are making a deal for a reduced sentence.
The prosecution has to prove. The defense only needs to introduce reasonable doubt. Not that these are the sort of fine points that will matter when the show trial starts.
It’s all just game theory. It’s a 2x2 grid of (actually guilty, actually not guilty) and (plea guilty, plea not guilty). You add up the risks and rewards for each box and usually not guilty is the better choice
I think it was a case I heard about on Criminal podcast where a man who turned himself in for having killed a man a long time ago and took full responsibility ended up pleading not guilty at his lawyer’s insistence. He thought there was a reasonable chance for a more lenient sentencing that way than pleading guilty. Can’t remember what the reasoning was.
If so, why is he pleading innocent?
He isn’t. There is no plea of innocence in the US system. He pled not guilty. There’s plenty of daylight between innocence and not being guilty as charged.
He pled not guilty. You don’t plead innocence in court.
He has to prove that he is not guilty of the case brought by the prosecution. That’s what not guilty means. He only has to disprove the specifics of the case brought against him.
Its the procetutor’s job to prove, it is the defendant’s job to disprove.
Pleading not guilty is the right choice. Either his lawyers think he’s not guilty, and this plea lets them beat the charges, or he is guilty and this plea delays the inevitable.
If he pled guilty that would skip the main part of the trial and go straight to sentencing. Pleading guilty is rarely a good idea unless you are making a deal for a reduced sentence.
The prosecution has to prove. The defense only needs to introduce reasonable doubt. Not that these are the sort of fine points that will matter when the show trial starts.
It’s all just game theory. It’s a 2x2 grid of (actually guilty, actually not guilty) and (plea guilty, plea not guilty). You add up the risks and rewards for each box and usually not guilty is the better choice
I think it was a case I heard about on Criminal podcast where a man who turned himself in for having killed a man a long time ago and took full responsibility ended up pleading not guilty at his lawyer’s insistence. He thought there was a reasonable chance for a more lenient sentencing that way than pleading guilty. Can’t remember what the reasoning was.