The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving Pilar Luague who was charged with murder. The Court of Appeals had affirmed her conviction but the Supreme Court overturned this based on reasonable doubt in the evidence. They ruled that Luague should be acquitted of the murder charge based on inconsistencies in witness testimony that created reasonable doubt about her guilt.
The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving Pilar Luague who was charged with murder. The Court of Appeals had affirmed her conviction but the Supreme Court overturned this based on reasonable doubt in the evidence. They ruled that Luague should be acquitted of the murder charge based on inconsistencies in witness testimony that created reasonable doubt about her guilt.
The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving Pilar Luague who was charged with murder. The Court of Appeals had affirmed her conviction but the Supreme Court overturned this based on reasonable doubt in the evidence. They ruled that Luague should be acquitted of the murder charge based on inconsistencies in witness testimony that created reasonable doubt about her guilt.
The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving Pilar Luague who was charged with murder. The Court of Appeals had affirmed her conviction but the Supreme Court overturned this based on reasonable doubt in the evidence. They ruled that Luague should be acquitted of the murder charge based on inconsistencies in witness testimony that created reasonable doubt about her guilt.