As we sit here after the jury in the Plantation cops mortgage fraud case has deliberated for five days without reaching a verdict, we have to consider the definition of the term "beyond a reasonable doubt". Let's look to the definition...
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.Think about that for a moment, in order to find a defendant guilty the prosecution must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the defendants guilt otherwise the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. How can the prosecution in this case expect the jury to find the defendants guilty in this case beyond a reasonable doubt when the governments main witnesses, the mortgage brokers Rene Rodriguez and Matt Gulla, have admitted to destroying evidence that may have been favorable to the defendants? Considering the shear volume of fraudulent mortgages Rodriguez and Gulla pulled off, by their own admission a number somewhere in the thousands, wouldn't evidence of their other frauds have been favorable to the defense theory that they were duped by the brokers and their associates as had thousands of others?
Considering the mortgage brokers destroyed evidence of these other frauds thereby making it impossible for the defendants to use the documentation involved to defend themselves, doesn't this in and of itself make it impossible for the prosecution to overcome the burden of reasonable doubt?
