Burden of Proof: Presumption of Innocence, Responsibility and Standard for Burden of Proof

In the Criminal Justice system, the main goal is justice or in other words, a fair consequence to match a criminal action. An obvious, yet unmentioned underlying goal is to prevent injustice. Many times, justice prevails, and this is why our system prevails today. However, when justice fails, it is key to look at the information offered in order to better the system and to repay those that have been failed by it. One area that has shown itself as flawed is the area of interrogations though many other areas will be presented throughout this paper as well. By examining five cases involving questionable interrogation and showing other system flaws, I will enlighten others as to how our justice system handles its flaws, and hopefully I will

What started the argument of this case was ‘what standard should be used to evaluate the sufficient amount of probable cause and if the word of an informant be reliable. Thanks to this case we now have a two prong rule that needs to be met before a magistrate can sign a search warrant.

The prosecution opens their case by making a speech to the jury. He introduces himself and states that he is appearing on behalf of the prosecution and introduces the attorney appearing on behalf of the defence. The prosecution will outline each offence and the evidence the jury will hear in proving this. The prosecutions’ speech sets out the burden of proof and the standard of proof which they have to prove in order to secure a conviction in the case. This is specific to the offence and will be based on the elements of the offence necessary to show the defendant’s guilt. The prosecution’s opening statement is a summary of the case at hand and the evidence in which they intend to adduce to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant indeed committed the crime. Where the prosecution propose to adduce a certain item

Now a day’s evidence can change a person’s life in the blink of an eye. “People were often punished for crimes based on the word of one or two individuals, with little concern given to sorting out the truth of the affair” (Hunter 12). But today a person must be tried and some physical evidence is needed in order for a person to be convicted of a crime.

What does the prosecution need to prove in the courtroom for a person to be convicted of a criminal offence? (2 marks)

During a trial the plaintiff will attempt to prove their case by the presentation of evidence to the trier of fact. The evidence usually includes testimony of persons involved; witnesses as well as physical things such as pictures, documentation/records, recordings etc…

While the presumption of innocence is not laid out explicitly in the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled stating that “the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf” (Coffin v. United States). John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, should have known that his statements did not give the defendant his due presumption of innocence.

In closing the aspect of using better presentation of evidence in court rooms today help with understanding the perspective of the defendant and of the victims in question to the crime itself. Showing the case in a detail way was not possible years ago brings about the question of whether the jurors' had a full understanding of what was being asked of them to decide on the fate of the persons in question. Advance visual evidence should be the primary goal of any case preceding to bring about a

The fact finding process during the trial of a case is one of the most critical aspects in the administration of justice. Every country has its methods to determine how a case is to be tried. It is within the prerogative of every state to determine the best approach in a court trial while considering the immortal principles of natural justice.

I think people should not be convicted with only circumstantial evidence. Most of the time people that are convicted are convicted with circumstantial evidence are innocent. My three supporting ideas are that circumstantial evidence is not enough it should be direct evidence, using circumstantial evidence will most likely convict an innocent person, and it does not point to one person or party.

O. J. Simpson was not found guilty of murder but was found liable (the equivalent of guilty) in the wrongful death case. “The reason for that is that the murder case was in the criminal system and the wrongful death case was a civil action” []. “For reasons such as different laws, procedures and a different burden of proof, it was possible for one jury not to convict O. J. of the murder charges and another jury to hold him responsible for the civil trial.” [] The 2 court systems are very different. “The differences lie in different laws, the different court system and different burdens of proof.”

The idea of law and order in this country isn’t a new one and, in fact, has taken a very long time to get to the point it is today. But it isn’t done changing or improving because with every new advancement and technology law must adapt to encompass these new gray areas and make them clear in the court of law. An example of a few large milestones in United States’ law that reflect such adaptability are the Federal Rules of Evidence; Federal Rules for Civil Procedure; and the Sedona Conference. Each of these milestones have made clear many issues and gray areas in the law. Issues in evidence collection and presenting as well as digital evidence collection are a few of the many subjects covered in these federal rules.

In the discussion which follows, the function served by ‘evidence’ within the adversarial system will be considered. The central importance of relevance to the admissibility of evidence will be linked to the purpose served by the tribunal of fact. The range of factors which impact on the criminal justice system will act as a basis to consider the justification for the exclusion of certain evidential material. Developments in attitudes as a result of recent legislation will lead the discussion to the conclusion that the above statement is not sustainable

Following such protocol could help in cases where classifying a person’s guilt is based on fact finding by way of fair and honest legal procedures instead of presenting facts alone. Because the rights listed in the Constitution are not simple, accountability and liability must be present for criminal justice officials and authorities. Equality and uniformity should have a place in the justice process.

In today’s society there are rules that define evidence pertaining to a defendant’s trial. These rules are defined as the “The Rules of Evidence” or “The Law of Evidence.” These rules create a safe and orderly environment, promote efficiency, and enhance the quality of evidence that pertain to all criminal trials. These rules restrict what a jury can and cannot hear or see, details of the law, and the importance of the effective performance of the law enforcement officer. Americans are well aware of the rules that govern evidence; but what are they, what do they mean, how do they apply to each case, and how are they broken down.