Reasonable Doubt

* 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.

A detention is reasonable when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, under the totality of the circumstance, provide an objective basis for suspecting the particular person detained may be involved in criminal activity. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224.) As such, an investigatory stop based on mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is an unlawful seizure, even though the officer may be acting in good faith. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629.) Nonetheless, reasonable suspicion cannot be justified after the fact by evidence of criminal activity uncovered during the course of the detention. (People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788.) Moreover, mere proximity cannot be enough to create reasonable suspicion because proximity

For instance, one aspect of the Rodriguez v. Firestone case and the first step in a civil case is the complaint. In civil lawsuit there is not a prosecution by the government but instead a plaintiff brings a claim of harm against the defendant. Here the Rodriguez claimed Firestone was responsible for the event that caused Rodriguez’s horrific road accident. Another major aspect of the civil system is the negotiation. This allows overzealous offers to be brought inline with more realistic compensation demands, which can aid in settling a case quickly. According to CNN after the trial started the two sides were able to reach agreement. An out-of-court settlement of ~$6 million was reported just four days into formal civil process (“Firestone suit settled for $7.5 million,”

It is important that there is proper clarity about the definition and the implications of reasonable doubt, because there are going to be multiple people that will

While reasonable suspicion does not require hard evidence, it does require more than a hunch. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually insignificant, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. For example, police may have reasonable suspicion to detain someone who fits a description of a criminal suspect, a suspect who drops a suspicious object after seeing police, or a suspect in a high crime area who runs after seeing police.

The level of proof required in a criminal trial is: “proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses).” (Garland 17) Meaning that if the judge has no doubt on the defendant's guilt based on the evidence provided he will be sentenced as guilty. On the other hand, in a civil trial, all that is needed is proof by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means that one side of the case has more proof than the other resulting in a small margin of difference between the case verdict.

A Civil court is as the name implies a court system based on disputes between average citizens which are far different from a criminal court where you are dealing with convicts. Just like a criminal court, a civil court also has a set of procedures listed by the judicial system in 1937 with over 86 different rules. Civil cases usually involve disputes between people or organizations. The court case Fenton v. Dudley in 2014. Fenton V. Dudley is “A lawsuit against lawyers who had filed a Fair Housing Act lawsuit against the plaintiff, which is the person who filed the lawsuit, and it later made its way from federal court to state court” (“Civil Rights -- federal court jurisdiction”). Both Civil and Criminal court both have the privilege of a trial by jury, depending on the circumstance.

Reasonable suspicion is a reasonable likelihood that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. It is a reasonable belief based on facts or circumstances and is informed by a police officer’s training and experience. Reasonable suspicion is seen as more than a guess or hunch but is less than probable cause. Probable cause is the logical belief, supported by facts and circumstances, which a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. The difference between the two are the fact that probable cause has evidence or is fact based whereas reasonable suspicion is a hunch.

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion in law enforcement are important terms used as a guideline to police offers or law enforcement agencies (Lushbaugh, 2012). Each officer is required to deal with every circumstance in light of the reasonable justification. Law enforcement officers and agencies are usually required to determine if there is sensible doubt or probable cause that can lead them to performing and taking part of certain actions in regards to a specific criminal circumstance. Probable cause is characterized as the activities or actions that are obvious and directs towards being part of evidence. The confirmation of evidence is acquired and obtained rationally in which will provide the officer with the knowledge of knowing one has committed a crime.

Thus, this leaves this determination up to the courts to decide case by case. Probable cause quantitates specific levels of suspicion and is based on facts and prudent belief of guilt, thus allowing a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search. Probable cause is more substantial than reasonable suspicion pertaining to the justification for an investigative detention. (Devallis Rutledge, 2010).

Specifically, in a criminal trial, it is the role of the jury to determine a “guilty” or a “not guilty” verdict which is set in place by the standard “beyond a reasonable doubt” meaning that even with the slightest indication of doubt, the defendant must be found not guilty. This standard places the burden of proof with the prosecution to ensure the judge or

Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which another officer in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. This would mean that a crime occurred and the said suspect is more likely than not the perpetrator. The suspect has the mental capacity, the obvious opportunity, and the capability to perform the crime under 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

Before a prosecutor decides to charge a person with a crime, three conditions must be met: They find a crime has been committed; perpetrator has been identified, sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict (Bethel, 2014).

The purpose of civil law is to “deal with the disputes between individuals, organizations, or between the two, in which compensation is awarded to the victim,” (“Civil Law vs Criminal Law.”, 2012). Civil law applies when there is a dispute between private parties, and the government is not involved. The lack of government involvement also leads to easier negotiations. Civil cases can be much more flexible since there is typically no law being broken and thus, no legal actions have to be taken. The less rigid civil law cases also generally allow them to be settled quickly and without controversy. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than half of general civil trials conclude in state courts, meaning they are able to reach an agreement and do not have to continue spending unnecessary time and money on the case (“Civil Justice.”, 2017).