BBM
It troubles me greatly that the emphasis of this thread is "CM is guilty, go ahead and try to prove him innocent". I am aware that not all posters are familiar with the USA jury trial system, but I believe it needs to be stated once again, IN A COURT OF LAW THE DEFENDANT IS CONSIDERED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Those of us who are questioning the evidence and analyzing the facts deserve to be treated respectfully (instead of simply being described as "nerdish").
With all due respect I think you completely misunderstood my post.
As a qualified lawyer, I am familiar with BARD standard
My post addressed evidential burdens in the case - which are quite different from the standard of proof.
Due to presumption of innocence, there is never a burden on the defence to prove anything as a starting point.
However where the defence wishes to claim that a state of affairs existed, the defense must be able to point to at least some evidence which supports the contention.
So for instance where the defence Attorney is saying "Joey told Chase it was OK to make these cheques and knew about it" - that contention needs to be raised before the jury based on actual evidence. If not, it should be dismissed as unsupported by the evidence.
So in this way, driven by the arguments the defence wants to make, an evidential burden can arise. Especially where the state has proven facts which give rise to a natural and obvious inference of fraud/theft.
So the defence can stay passive, and say "well its all not clear enough". That is legit. But if the defence wants to claim that everything was a different way it needs to have evidence of its own to rebut the obvious conclusion.
And I believe I was referring to myself as nerdish