Proof And The Burden Of Proof

* He goes on to say that the law requires a reasonable doubt to acquit someone, but he thinks that a shadow of a doubt should be enough – as long as there’s the possibility that the accused is innocent.

When Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was take from hospital to Sutherland police station he was interviewed/ interrogated like a suspect as the case had been turn to a sexual assault case and he was told that, “in the case of assault upon a wife, we always check out the husband’s story first”, (McLeod-Lindsay, A, 1984). Another role of investigators is to collect evidence. The police had bought a change of clothing for Alexander McLeod- Lindsay, so that they can take the clothes that he had wearing as evidence. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had now become the suspect of sexually assaulting and attempting to murder his wife and son. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was found guilty of attempted murder due to the circumstantial evidence that was bought forward before the jury such as the blood splatter that was on the wall and blood stains found on the accused Alexander McLeod-Lindsay’s clothing. Despite the fact that there was no form of direct evidence such as someone eye witnessing the incident or even to point the finger that Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had committed the attempted murder of his wife and 4 year old son Bruce, the jury still convicted him of committing the offence, all based on circumstantial evidence. This highlights that Alexander McLeod-Lindsay experienced miscarriage of justice due to the fact the jury based their decision on the circumstantial evidence of blood stains that were found on Alexander

Fundamental to the Scottish legal system is discovering the truth. In Scotland, a defendant has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty . The burden of proof lies with the Crown, who must prove their case against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. From the very beginning of the criminal process - the arrests of the suspect - until the very end - the conviction of the defendant - the state are empowered with many rights, such as the power to detain , which assist them in reaching the truth. Although the state are provided with these rights, there are limitations placed on them in the form of the rights of the defendant, such as the right to remain silent or the right to defend themself either in person or through legal

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?

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…

The Salem witch trials took place in Salem, Massachusetts and began around spring of 1692 (History). They started when a group of young Puritan girls believed that they were possessed by the devil, and they accused many innocent people of witchcraft. This lead to trials being held, and almost always would the witch be deemed guilty. During this time period, they would use various forms of evidence to prove someone guilty that are not seen today, and a good example of this is in The Wonders of the Invisible World written by Cotton Mather. In their trials they would strange methods of evidence to prove a person guilty, and obviously there is no way that this is seen in our modern society today.

Innocent until proven guilty is a phrase that applies to our judicial system in modern times; however, when the play Doubt by John Patrick Stanley was written this phrase did not always apply. The play is a parable that makes you think about how gossip and rumors can cause havoc and potentially ruin someone’s career. In the play the rumors that are flying are rumors about whether or not Father Flynn is innocent or guilty to the crime of molesting a young boy named Donald Muller. Critics still argue whether he was innocent or guilty to the crime today, and no answer is known. However, based on the evidence in Patrick Shanley’s play Doubt: A Parable, one could conclude that Father Flynn is innocent due to the fact that he had reasonable evidence

idea of “undue burden” was established in the decision (Seward par. 4). The idea of “undue

In determining the differences between a freestanding and gateway claim of actual innocence in habeas review, I will identify several factors that go into the courts procedures and verdict in deciding if the convicted petitioner is entitled to habeas relief. Some of these factors include the nature in which the petitioner is questioning their conviction, such as a constitutional error or new evidence surfacing. From that, I will explain how the court decides the standard of review in determining if the petitioner should be granted relief. Finally, I will explain which one of the two has a much higher chance of successfully being granted habeas relief.

Fraser does very little to offer others opinions. He talks mainly from personal experience, using only a single case to reference, not only does he not offer other experts opinions but only uses one statistic from an outside source. “Statistical analysis from the Innocence Project work, we know that we have, what, 250, 280 documented cases now where people have been wrongly convicted and subsequently exonerated”. Here, Dr. Fraser uses this related statistic to further back up his argument from a logos perspective. Even though Dr. Fraser does very little to offer others opinions; because of his great use of ethos, pathos, and logos he was able to strongly back up his views and persuade the audience towards his side of the argument.

Common law also permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence that was relevant to the accused’s guilt of the offence charged,

Evidence is defined as any matter of fact, the effect, tendency, or design of which is to produce in the mind a persuasion, affirmative or disaffirmative, of the existence of some other matter of fact that a crime has been committed.(Paul B. Watson, 1986) In a legal sense, evidence is the information presented in court during a trial which enables the judge and jury to decide a particular case (Garland & Stuckey, 2000). There are two main types of evidence, which are testimony and physical items which can be presented to the judge and jury during a criminal trial. Physical evidence is any evidence found at the perpetrator’s

In an imaginary world the law would always give the correct results but in a real world it’s the other way. When they don’t which way do they tend to err? Which way do we want to err? We want the law to err on the side of acquitting guilty people rather than convicting ones. It is generally accepted that the price of a fair Criminal Justice System will be acquittal on a technicality of those who have committed criminal offences or because of a failure of evidence, where as conviction of the innocent is

Lord Bingham did not agree that the policy arguments established in Hill and subsequently followed in Brooks to be appropriate in the context of Smith. In Smith he attempted to introduce a ‘liability principle’. The principle proposed that where evidence is credible and the threat is specific and imminent, reasonable steps must be taken to assess such a threat and act where necessary. He did not agree that adopting the principle would induce defensive practices, neither did he agree that accepting the principle would detract from the police’s primary functions. The ‘liability principle’ reflected the content of Article 2 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Right to life.