Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal contending that the burden of proof in criminal matter is on the prosecution that he has no duty to prove his innocence.

He was sentenced to 7 and 5 years for counts 2, 3 &4 and Counts 5 & 6 respectively, which counts were to run concurrently. The trial court found the Appellant not guilty of the offence of conspiracy but guilty of the offences of stealing and obtaining by false pretence. The Appellant and one Michael Nnodu (who was described to be at large)was charged before the trial court on six counts for conspiracy, obtaining by false pretence and stealing. A defendant’s actual innocence or guilt may be an abstraction.Legalpedia Electronic Citation: LER CA/L/782C/2018Īppeal, Criminal Law And Procedure, Law Of Evidence, Practice And Procedure, Words And Phrases Verdicts do not necessarily reflect the truth, they reflect the evidence presented. If it cannot be proved without a doubt that the defendant is guilty, that person should not be convicted. Reasonable doubt stems from insufficient evidence. law, a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. Other commonly used standards of proof in criminal cases are probable cause, reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion, and credible evidence.Reasonable doubt is used exclusively in criminal cases because the consequences of a conviction are severe.

Each juror must walk into the courtroom presuming the accused is innocent and it is the job of the prosecutor to convince them otherwise.

If it cannot be proved without a doubt that a defendant in a criminal case is guilty, then that person should not be convicted.

Reasonable doubt is insufficient evidence that prevents a judge or jury from convicting a defendant of a crime.

Proof beyond shadow of doubt