Criminal Procedure - Article Example

As the attorney of the 35 year old man arrested for possession of marijuana, in an argument for the setting of his bail, I would argue a few factors that would affect the setting of bail directly to his favor. In light of the knowledge that the factors presented are the determinants of the setting, I would move a strong case involving the history of the customer. I would portray the man as a family man and a bread winner. The setting of the bail should put into consideration the family interests.

The man has a job which could be lost due to being put in custody it would affect his future. Moreover, the man has stayed out of trouble for seven years and due to family and job commitments he has a low likelihood of flight. As the prosecutor in the same case I would consider the factors presented in the history of the defendant. His criminal record suggests aggression and prior conviction of drug possession. He is a clear potential danger to society based on the previous assault cases. The clean sheet that he has had was due to lack of opportunity for exposure of the real him; he had been using marijuana possibly all along.

If he could stab a girlfriend at twenty, family is no reason to avoid flight. The suppressing of identification evidence on due process grounds requires the defendant to prove the two elements by preponderance of evidence. These elements are; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guiltyThe other is the Burden of Truth which is the burden to define the duty placed upon the prosecution, to demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her.

But in some jurisdiction, the defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of certain facts that give rise to a defense, such as the insanity plea. An officer issues a Miranda warning to a suspect after a person has officially been taken into custody; before any interrogation takes place, with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.In Miranda, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined custody as an environment that the defendant has been placed by the officers in which they believe they do not believe they are free to leave.

In determination whether a person is in custody the court considers some circumstances. These circumstances are; whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go, arrests made without a valid arrest warrant based on probable cause are presumptively invalid under the Fourth Amendment and arrests made pursuant to a warrant that is later ruled defective may also be declared invalid, unless the officer in procuring the warrant and making the arrest acted in good faith.

A suspect should be suppressed since the constitution provides that police can question witnesses at crime scenes without reading them their Miranda rights, and should a witness implicate themselves in the crime during that questioning, their statements could be used against them later in court. Nonetheless, a suspect should not be suppressed since the same constitution protects suspects from self incrimination.The adjudication process of the criminal law differs due to jurisdiction. Generally though, it assumes the same format.

The burden of proof is always on the prosecution in most countries with a democratic rule of law. The world ought to hold weight in the presumption of innocence for the criminal procedure to be improved. All countries should have provisions to the right to legal counsel; even third world countries, for those who can’t afford lawyers too.ReferencesRuschmann, Paul, Miranda Rights, Facts on File Inc., 2009Samaha, Joel, Criminal Procedure, Cengage Learning, 2009