How has the prosecution changed its burden of proof in a sexual assault case?

Defendant also contends the prosecution shifted the burden of proof when it argued, "I have the sole burden in this case, you've heard that, and that's absolutely true. If my evidence that I presented in my case hasn't convinced you of guilt, then you have to vote not guilty. And anyone is entitled to sit back and see if I can prove the case if you're charged with a crime. The defense didn't sit back, though, they put up a bunch of lying witnesses and you are entitled as a jury to decide whether you believe them."⁶ Defendant contends the prosecution "improperly attempted to lessen the People's burden of proof by arguing to the jury that the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard required the jury to determine whether defendant's innocence was reasonable." (People v. Ellison (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1353.) But the prosecution expressly acknowledged that it bore the "sole burden in this case." The argument that the prosecution could still carry its burden when defendant put on his own case did not suggest

Page 17

either that the prosecution's burden was reduced or that defendant took on a burden of his own.

E. Remarks Concerning Defendant's Trial Counsel