Criminal Law or Burden of Proof - Term Paper Example

Many are the times when people have watched movies and films which dwell on criminal investigations and legal drama. In these films, the different aspects that are required for the prosecution, arraignment in court as well as sentencing of a person are brought forth. But some of the terms that are used in these films are never paid attention to and many just follow the plot. Terms such as criminal evidence, burden of proof, and innocent until proven guilty and beyond any reasonable doubt are seen as part of the storyline. However, criminal law takes these words seriously. The legal system places such responsibilities on the state to ensure that people accused of a crime are sentenced for a crime that they can prove as having taken place (Herring, 2004). The prosecutor is thus expected to take the evidence and submit it in court where it will be scrutinized to ensure it passes the possible hurdles to be accepted as part of the charges against the accused. This implies that the burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution since they have to prove their case. It means that the prosecution has to conduct thorough investigations to ensure that the penalties accompanying the criminal conviction that the individual has been charged with are served as a result of the proof of the charges beyond any reasonable doubt. As such, the burden of proof is an important attribute of criminal investigation processes and requires that the party presenting the charges to establish the truth based on quantum of evidence available as demanded by law. Criminal Evidence These may be identified as any forms of testimony or exhibit that may be used against an accused person to prove that they were engaged in criminal activities. The legal systems have improvised a way of identifying what is acceptable as evidence and what is not. However, it is clear that the evidence must provide reasonably reliable information that gives a clear depiction of the crime (s) committed (Herring, 2004). There is direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is identified as that which is truly beyond any reasonable doubt while circumstantial evidence is considered as that which requires more for the proof to be standardized. The proof may be there but may not prove anything ambivalently. This means that there are circumstances where both may be blended to present a formidable case against the accused. They must however be relevant to the case since the judge or jury or the arbitrating bodies require this to base their decisions and final verdicts on the issue (Hammon, 2010). The criminal trials may be seen as either excruciating or straight forward based on how the evidence is presented. Each individual has to make sure that the evidence is completely legal and provable based on the facts that they provide. Otherwise, the trial may be nullified and restarted if the evidence is proven to be illegal or obtained corruptly. As understandd, the court and the legal system as a whole place great emphasis on the evidence since it is the only piece of information that is between freedom and incarceration for the accused. Proving this beyond any reasonable doubt is thus left as a burden to the prosecutor or else, they will not have a case to proceed with. It means that they need to come up with evidence from an expert in the area and that which is from the victim and the eyewitnesses (Hammon, 2010). Without this, the analysis of their case may be flawed or irrelevant and the inference may be far fetched. This may lead to the loss of confidence in the prosecution and thus, the failure of the justice system to portray a ray of hope for those seeking justice. Given this, it is important that one understand the importance of the burden of proof and how this may be used to help one create a watertight case based on facts and objectivity of the case at hand (Hails, 2011). Burden of Proof Many definitions characterize this term. In this report, Ingram’s definition will be considered. The author defines the burden of proof as “a party’s duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge (Ingram 2011, p. 47).” that definition opens up a lot of questions based on how this may be done and why this is necessary in the first place. However, given the gravity of the penalty to be incurred, the need to prove that a charge is true cannot be overlooked. Analysis, inferences and conclusions will feature in this section given the importance of the evidence that is in the custody of the prosecution. Experts in different areas such as forensics and health will be used to prove that the theory the prosecution has derived from their investigations is truly provable given the evidence in their possession. But this does not come about easily. This is because this burden does not shift during the cause of the trial and always rests with the prosecution unless the defendant is required to prove certain defenses (ingram, 2011). There are some important attributes that the burden of proof requires. First, there is the burden of persuasion and secondly the burden of production. The prosecution is expected to provide enough conviction that the evidence presented in court is based on facts and is clearly meant to tilt the case in their favor. The burden of production implies the need for the prosecution to present evidence that will see them go through with their case through proof of particular issues regarding the case (Hails, 2011). The ultimate results are taken into greater considerations as opposed to the individual questions that may arise during the duration of the trial. It is important to understand however that the burden of proof may be fulfilled by either establishing that the evidence is positive or by providing a negating opinion to the oppositional evidence presented (Hammon, 2010). To prove this, some considerations are primarily expected to be fulfilled. First and foremost, the question of who bears the burden based on the case and evidence presented and secondly, the degree of certainty the proof must support during the trial. It is imperative to understand that each of these aspects has to be fulfilled since every essential fact has to be corroborated by independent sources as a way of ensuring that the accused is not convicted unjustly under the Scots Law (Hails, 2011). Standards of Proof The burden of proof means that one of the parties has to come up with ways and mean of verifying their evidence based on facts and proof. As such, the need for legal standards that allows one to dispute, refute or concur with what is stated in court have to be set to make sure that justice is served. It is imperative to understand that the proof lies with the individual or party that affirms rather than the one who has denied the charges (ingram, 2011). This is because according to nature, the party that refutes the charges has nothing to prove. One of the standards is the reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is used to identify whether any search by a government official or police officer is warranted. It is not very thorough and takes a brief moment before being abandoned. Unless it is a probable cause, which takes place longer and is thorough, it only comes about based on specific and articulate suspicion of a crime that is afoot (Hails, 2011). Instincts are not used in this case as reasonable suspicion for searches. Probable cause to arrest is another form of proof that is commonly used as a standard for proof. This is used by grand juries as a means of determining whether indictments are needed or in civil cases where the plaintiff seeks for a prejudgment remedy. This is based mainly on the belief that evidence may be adduced from the search (ingram, 2011). Preponderance of the evidence is the balance of probabilities that are required for civil cases to be determined. This may be used in family courts in cases where money is involved such as child support cases. It may be applied by the jury whose decision is irrefutable. This is where the decision made is closer to the truth than otherwise (Hails, 2011). Clear and convincing evidence on the other hand has a greater level of persuasion compared to the rest of the standards and is used to determine civil and criminal cases alike. Based on these standards, it is clear that the burden of proof varies based on where the case is being tried. Each party has their role in the cases and so do the judges and the juries. The evidence, as observed, plays a crucial role in determining the burden of proof and thus requires as much emphasis as all other facts. This has to be passed through the highest standard of legal proof which is the beyond reasonable doubt standard. This means that the evidence produced must be of such a convincing character that any rational person cannot falter in utilizing it should their personal affairs require them to do so (Hammon, 2010). This implies the need to prove that the decision inferred from the evidence cannot be questioned for failure to reach the expected level of logic. It is even mandated in the constitution a part of the burden of proof within the criminal proceedings to ascertain the fact that those who are convicted are fairly judged. It will also allow the defendant to enjoy their liberty based on a very high level of moral certainty (Hails, 2011). Towards the Burden of Proof Given the above standards of legal proof, it is important to understand that the prosecution is required to present its evidence for the defendants to form their defenses based on the same. There is the burden of going forward is the obligation of the prosecution to present their evidence a means of proceeding with the case at hand (Hammon, 2010; Hails, 2011). This is the first step towards the determination of the case at hand using facts rather than using the same facts as a means of judging the accused without following due process of the law. It is a simple statement that seeks to show the burden placed on the prosecution to build their case based on the evidence they have accrued from their investigations. The burden of going forward is shifted to the defense team if the prosecution survives the defendant’s request for a directed verdict. This will give the defense a chance to build its case. In case the defendant pleads to an affirmative defense such as self-defense, insanity or an alibi, the burden of proof will rest squarely on the defendant (ingram, 2011). The burden of persuasion on the other hand dwells on the ability of one party to convince the fact finder, in this case the judge or the jury, to believe that their evidence is superior to that of the other party. This means that they must provide statements, facts and exhibits that prove this and may use them in their closing arguments to try and sway the ultimate decision (Hails, 2011). They must try and depict their party as the most viable for the positive decision that the case is expected to present. In short, they must work on the conviction beyond any shadow of doubt based on their facts and the corroboration of the evidence in their possession. Conclusion As such, the burden of proof is something that is less complex in understanding its application but quite hectic in applying it in a court of law. The civil and criminal cases have different definitions of its application and each individual ought to be well informed about the same. Whichever case it is, the prosecutor must set a course in the direction that provides sufficient evidence that allows them to maximize their chances of serving justice as deserved by the accused person. It is therefore appropriate to infer that it is worse for an innocent person to be convicted of a crime they did not commit rather than for a guilty person to be left to walk free. If the evidence is not considerably adduced and inferred based on what has been presented, the court will have denied the accused a chance to enjoy their liberties and a chance for the clause of innocent until proven guilty from being fully utilized. The burden of proof is based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the initial viewpoint is to ensure that this stage is not flawed. References Hails, J. (2011). Criminal Evidence. Independence. KY: Cengage Learning Hammon, L. L. (2010). Hammon on Evidence, Covering Burden of Proof, Presumptions, Judicial Notice, Judicial Admissions, and Estoppel. Memphis, Tennessee: General Books LLC. Herring, J. (2004). Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ingram, J. L. (2011). Criminal Evidence (11th Edition). New York, NY: Elsevier Read More