wakeflood
MM, I know no one else is wandering down this purely philosophical lane with us but I will pose one last earnest and friendly question, should you still be reading this(?!!) ;-)
You’ve been chosen to lead the group of lawyers who will be arguing for a stay of execution for the assailant in my hypothetical. “No worries, you got this”, they say as you step up to the rostrum to address the 9th District Court of Appeals.
Are you going to argue the issue of the POTENTIAL of actual innocence of this person due to only a “reasonable” certainty but not complete certainty of guilt? If so, how will you frame it? Assume only the facts of the case I outlined and which you confirmed met only, no reasonable doubt.
I’m trying to imagine a scenario in this specific instance where your fellow legal advisers would let you go there for fear of reducing your credibility to zero and thus sabotaging your chance to save this guy’s life. But maybe you would go Hume all over the bench and get up their inductive grill, so to speak? ;-)