Because its not on the driver to prove anything in court?
Printable View
It is not true that a defendant never has to prove anything in court. The defendant has to prove any defenses he wishes to use. If the state presents sufficient evidence to support that the defendant is guilty of the offense and the defendant has some evidence to prove the state wrong then he needs to proffer that evidence or he’ll lose. So if the officer testifies that the driver drove through the red light and the defendant offers nothing in defense, what do you think will happen? The defendant will be convicted, of course, because the evidence before the court indicates he’s guilty and there is nothing in evidence to counter what the state presented.
Of course if the state lacks sufficient evidence to even make a prima facie case against the defendant then the defendant need not offer anything. It is the situation in which the state can make that prima facie case that the defendant needs to offer something to rebut it.