The Gipper Posted April 12, 2010 Report Share Posted April 12, 2010 For those of you wondering "how can they not charge Ben Roethlisberger", it is a pure and simple matter. It is called "The Burden of Proof". For someone to be convicted of a criminal charge, he must be shown to have committed the act and violated the law "beyond a reasonable doubt". How do you get to the point that you can convince a jury that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? By the introduction of significant, compelling evidence. So? What do we have here in the BR case? We have a girl that says "he did it"; and we have a guy who says "I didn't do it..or if I did something it was all strictly consensual". To my knowledge no other credible evidence, beyond the statement of the purported victim, has been discovered. In essence we have a "she said, he said" case. Sorry folks, but that ain't good enough. It is particularly not good enough where you have a small town prosecutor who may be asked to bring a criminal charge against a high profile defendant. Take my word for it, Prosecutors do not like to lose. They want to win. But they only want to win in situations where they are perfectly confident they can win. The evidence here apparently is not sufficient, and the prosecutor came to the conclusion that he could not win...particulary if he were to go up against the highly compensated and competent defense counsel that BR could afford to bring in....and when he is confronted with the level of the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. "He said, she said" is never a winning formula in a criminal trial. Note also however that this does not mean the the prosecutor concluded that BR did not commit the act he is accused of, but simply that he cannot prove it at a criminal trial. Also note that the situation is completely different in a civil case for damages. If this "victim" were to bring a civil case against BR, then the burden of proof is much lower. In a civil matter it is merely a "preponderance of the evidence" that is needed to win your case. In a civil case "He said, she said" may actually be successful for this complainant. Why you ask? CREDIBILITY. In a civil case of this nature when the jury is presented with dichotomous evidence where she says "he did it" and he says "I didn't do it" it all comes down to: who do you believe? So, ask yourself: who would a jury believe? The girl or the quarterback? I am of the firm belief that BR will now face another civil action as a result of this incident. The whole trial wouldl revolve around "who do you believe"...that is, if there is a trial. If his attorneys are convinced that BR has poor credibility, and the the girl has good credibility, I would expect a settlement. So, there you have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.