Jury misunderstood Reasonable Doubt

A jury convicted our client, Assmar Shlah, of second-degree murder recently. The evidence tendered by the Crown was weak at best after a seven-week trial. Our criminal law requires that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We recognize that most people don't understand how to interpret the term "reasonable doubt". 

A reasonable doubt is closer to absolute certainty than to any other standard. It is a high standard and it is meant to be high because we do not want innocent people wrongfully convicted. It is fundamentally unfair for someone to lose his or her liberty under any less of a standard.

We were and always are invested in our clients and the legal work we advance on behalf of our clients. We took it personally when Mr. Shlah was convicted. We were and are offended by this result. However, we must put our personal feelings aside and continue our fight. Why? Because, the rule of law requires us to fight. Convictions cannot be sustained when the evidence is so poor.

The appeal process has begun and we will fight tirelessly to the end, not only for Mr. Shlah, but for all our clients.

Contact Our Team Of Experienced Criminal Defence Lawyers

Send Us An E-mail

Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters.