Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
In your report of the conviction and sentence of Levern Ward for the murder of Debra Evans and two of her children, you cite inadequacy of evidence (Page 1, June 23) as the reason the jury opted for a life sentence instead of the death penalty.
I always thought that in order to convict anyone of murder, a jury had to be convinced of the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” based on the preponderance of the evidence presented.
But if there was doubt in the sentence phase based on an apparent inadequacy of evidence, surely it was there in the verdict deliberation phase. Or is there such a thing as reasonable doubt after conviction?
Am I missing something here?
