1. The defendant has been charged with one of more crimes.
2. The prosecution will present evidence that the charges are true.
3. It is common for the defense to provide a rebuttal.
4. The jurors are supposed to only consider evidence provided during the trial and they should start by presuming that the defendant is innocent. It is possible that after careful deliberation they may decide the defendant is guilty but if they have good reason to find fault with vital prosecution evidence they shall acquit.

I could modify point three to say it is common for the defense to provide a rebuttal.

I could also say confidently change their minds in point four.

Your understanding is almost exactly right. The only things I would alter are point 3 and a clarification on point 4.

Regarding point 3, the defense does not necessarily provide a rebuttal. Although I suspect the defense will almost always put on witnesses and thus will provide a rebuttal, the law does not require this in order to obtain an acquittal.

This is because, as you noted in your first version of point 4, the jury is supposed to start from the idea that the accused person is innocent and only changes their minds if there is evidence sufficient to change their minds and convince them that the accused person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

To merely say, “convict only if there is sufficient evidence to cause them to change their minds” seems to indicate that if there’s just enough evidence to make the jurors think the guy did it, then he’s guilty. And I think it too often does happen that way.

However, what the law requires is something stronger. It requires that the jurors have their minds changed from innocent to guilty and that they do not have any doubts about that which are reasonable. This doesn’t mean that they don’t have any doubts at all. As the judge will almost always instruct, doubts are always possible to imagine. But the question is, are the doubts reasonable. If there are doubts which are reasonable to have, then acquittal is the correct verdict.

This is true even if a juror still thinks, “Yeah, the accused person might have done this” or “I think the accused person probably did it.” That an accused person “probably” did commit the crime is not enough in our justice system, for a conviction.

And so, returning to point 3, it might not be necessary for the defense to put on any witnesses or evidence at all. There may be no need at all for rebuttal evidence. The attorney may just try to show that the prosecutor’s story is wrong based on testimony the prosecution witnesses gave directly, or through the cross-examination of those witnesses.

Certainly, there will be a rebuttal argument. The defense attorney will explain to the jury the problems with the prosecutor’s story and point out the holes in the evidence. (I can imagine a situation where even this would not be necessary. However, I don’t think any defense attorney in his right mind would fail to provide an argument, even if they did not put on any witnesses.)

The law requires the prosecutor to prove guilt. The defense having a different “story” may help prevent the prosecutor from being able to prove guilt, but it is not necessary.

The prosecutor might not have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even if the defense never says anything at all.

1) The defendant has been accused of one or more crimes.
2) The prosecution will present evidence that the charges are true.
3) The defense will provide a rebuttal.
4) The jury is supposed to only consider evidence provided during the trial and they are to start the process by presuming that the defendant is innocent. They should convict only if there is sufficient evidence to cause them to change their minds.

An alternate version of point 4 is

4) The jury is supposed to only consider evidence provided during the trial and they are to start the process by presuming that the defendant is guilty and they should only acquit if the is sufficient evidence to cause them to change their minds.

The problem as I see it is to convince potential jurors that there is a fundamental and vital differences between the two versions of point 4.

However, the reason I don’t know what you could possibly mean by that is that my blog is nowhere near as useful as Scott’s!