Essay on Concepts of Criminal Law

Like any other criminal case, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They are required to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed the crime. Mickey McGlothlin presented an organized and persuasive opening statement that gave the jury the impression that Roger Coleman was guilty based on the significant amount of evidence against him.

The court is the second component of the justice system – once the suspect is arrested, s/he is referred to as a defendant. It is now up to the court to decide if the police had enough evidence for probable cause for arrest – if the determination is positive, then the defendant gets an opportunity to plead innocent or guilty. Once the court establishes that the defendant is innocent, s/he is released; on the other hand if the defendant is found guilty the court decides the type of punishment and then the defendant is turned over to the Corrections for the follow up of the punishment.

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.

1. In a criminal trial, the defendant must be proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt?

What level of proof is required in a criminal trial? How does that differ in a civil trial?

The question at hand was that how much evidence must an individual, who was already trialed and convicted of a crime, present to a court in order for the court to review his case (“House v Bell”).

The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

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…

Still sometimes, prosecutors might be persuaded that they have the correct respondent and a totally precise charge with respect to what crime(s) he or she carried out, but secure a conviction might be flawed. This obviously is valuable for the two sides to mastermind a determination of the issue without either side taking the risk that the body of evidence may conflict with them if it somehow managed to go to trial.

Evidence is any property that comes into the custody of a law enforcement officer when such property may tend to prove or disprove the commission of a crime, or the identity of the suspect, pursuant to an official criminal investigation.

The two forms are preponderance of the evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance is mostly used in civil court, whereas proof beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal court. In civil court, the plaintiff must provide factual evidence regarding why he or she is suing the defendant. In a criminal case, a higher standard of evidence is required, which is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In most criminal cases the prosecutor must attempt to persuade that the defendant, is, in fact, guilty of the charges brought against them. In criminal cases, the evidence must be circumstantial and adequate enough to decide whether the person is guilty. Which is where the term proof beyond a reasonable doubt derives from. It's another way of saying are you certain, is the proof enough for you to say okay, I have no doubt in my mind that this person is

or more other charges, the prosecutor should note that this is the basis of the

There are many tangible circumstances that tend to prove or disprove some facts in all criminal or civil cases. Under rule 41(b) “A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any (1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offenses; or (2) contraband, the fruits of a crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or (3) property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense; or (4) person for whose arrest there is probable cause, or who is unlawfully restrained” (John N. Ferdico, 1999). Evidence is one of the single most important pieces of a criminal trial. It is used to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

What are the purposes of punishment? Which do you consider to be the most important and why?