CNN’s Senior Legal Analyst Laura Coates weighed in today on the closing arguments of Chauvin’s defense and revealed to everyone that she doesn’t have a clue what she’s doing:
“Defense begins the closing by defining reasonable doubt, not with why Derek Chauvin is innocent. Think about that.”
— Laura Coates (@thelauracoates) April 19, 2021
Well several people did “think about that”, including Matt Walsh, who slammed her for not understanding how the judicial process in America works:
You understand that the entire premise of our legal system is that the defense is not tasked with proving innocence? I mean that's the most fundamental point to understand. And your job is to understand it. Yet here you are. Wow.
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) April 19, 2021
Exactly. It’s innocent UNTIL proven guilty. And the standard for guilt is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is basic stuff.
Here’s a few more responses…
Perhaps this CNN analyst should reacquaint herself with the standard for criminal conviction https://t.co/RaA03Cspf7
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) April 19, 2021
This isn’t a unique occurrence. CNN’s legal commentary is extraordinarily bad. https://t.co/Lz1GDeJpiH
— AG (@AGHamilton29) April 19, 2021
This person is a “senior legal analyst”.
Think about that.
— FilmScoreLove (@ScoreAndOST) April 19, 2021
Ok, I thought about it and I'm thinking.. This is the standard for all court cases with a jury. A jury doesn't determine someones innocence. Only if there is enough evidence to avoid reasonable doubt. You should know that. You are a senior legal analyst.
— Shangori (@ShangoriGannos) April 19, 2021
Is this your first trial? https://t.co/B7aOSx2nDP
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) April 19, 2021