Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 December 21

= December 21 =

Plausible alternative explanation in criminal case
I have read that if a defendant in a criminal case can put forward a plausible alternative explanation of the facts, this could result in his being found not guilty. Is this correct, and if so could a user please give me the legal source or sources for this. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is just another way of describing the "burden of proof (law)" in criminal trials. The prosecution has to convince the judge, or the jury, that the defendant is guilty "beyond reasonable doubt." If the defence can provide a plausible alternative explanation of the facts, that is just one way of casting doubt on the evidence. It would still be up to the judge or jury to decide whether to find the defendant guilty or not: they may not believe the alternative explanation, however, plausible it sounds to the defence. Wymspen (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe start with reasonable doubt? Also, it may vary by legal jurisdiction.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We do not offer legal advice.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * General inquiries about the legal process do not constitute legal advice. StuRat (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Questions with answers that may vary based on jurisdiction which can lead to assumptions about validity of legal defenses can and does constitute legal advice.--WaltCip (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope, just state what jurisdiction(s) the answer is for, or a general disclaimer that it may not apply to all jurisdictions. If you can't be sued for saying it, it's not legal or professional advice. StuRat (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * My personal view of "legal or medical advice" is, is there any realistic risk of anyone (be it the OP or some other reader) acting (or not acting) in a particular way on a medical or legal issue, based on the answers given here?. In that respect, the lack of consistency between jurisdictions suggests the answer is, there's no realistic concern here. The issue is general in nature. We can certainly direct the OP to relevant wikipedia articles or other quality information sources which may offer illumination on the question (or quote from those articles) without violating "legal or medical advice" prohibitions. In the future, I'd say a question of this nature belongs on the humanities desk. Eliyohub (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The question touches on more than one area of the law. I think mention of our Burden of proof (law) and our Reasonable doubt articles would not necessarily constitute "legal advice" but merely would constitute normal use of our website. But to be acting most responsibly we could point out that no information of a general nature read on our website is a substitute for competent legal advice by a professional and in regard to a particular case. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that the reverse is not true. That is, a defendant is often found "not guilty" even when there is no plausible alternative.  OJ Simpson comes to mind. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the state failed to prove its case against OJ. A lot of the stuff you and I "knew" about the case was not entered into evidence, so the jury couldn't consider it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Or fortunately, if what you think you know was wrong. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OJ Simpson is a bad example, because it's plausible that his son Jason committed the murders (see e.g. this article), though that never came up in the trial. A better example might be Jack Kevorkian's three acquittals, but I don't think it's relevant to this thread in any case. -- BenRG (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)