The One Witness Case; The Burden is Still the Same

     The burden of proof must remain "beyond a reasonable doubt" regardless of whether there is 1 witness or 100.  The question posed by the prosecution, while typically upheld as proper, is a challenge to the constitutional requirement that the government prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt".  While the phrase is relatively subjective (even though there is instruction given to the jury as to what the term means), it does indicate that there is a high standard, or heavy burden that must be met before an accused can be convicted.  Looking at this issue from an ordinary citizens perspective, the damage that is done by a simple accusation pales in comparison to the damage that will be done if you are convicted after trial.  Anyone can be accused.  I have seen police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, doctors, fathers, mothers, be accused of of all sorts of crimes.  The protections afforded to criminal defendants in our system of justice should never be taken lightly, even if the "nature of the charges" are bad or the person being accused is not someone you would sit at the dinner table with.  Any prosecutor will tell you that a 1 witness case, especially one that involves a terrible allegation, is the toughest to handle.  Any defense attorney will tell you that representing a client in a 1 witness case in which the client is truly innocent is a difficult case to handle.  But the rules do not change or bend.  The system is supposed to be set up to protect the accused from injustice while the prosecution seeks justice.  Without that important check, justice could not be done.