8. What is the burden for the accused in presenting an affirmative defense? * Once the prosecution has introduced sufficient evidence that, if believed, would permit a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on every element of the charge, in order to avoid a conviction, the accused may be obliged to respond with evidence that raises or permits a reasonable doubt that he or she is guilty as charged. 76 In most instances, the defense has only to introduce sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. 9.
Case Analysis Assignment-The Trial of Orenthal J. Simpson April 7th, 2013 Fundamentally, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution and means that they are required to present evidence during a trial that must prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the defendant did in fact commit the crime they are being charged with. The burden of proof entails that the prosecution present evidence that is accurate of the guilt of the defendant and in addition persuade the jury that the evidence presented establishes that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Latin meaning of prima facie is first look. It refers to criminal prosecution wherein the evidence previous to the trial is satisfactory to prove a case except there is significant ambiguous evidence given at the trial. Subsequent to the prosecution putting on the total of its evidence, the defense attorney will customarily ask for a dismissal of the charges due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Introduction: The burden of proof is the commitment to prove one’s statement; in court this is called proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the standard in which a criminal is convicted. During a criminal prosecution trial, the defendant is always innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor must convince the jury, a reasonable jury, that the defendant is guilty beyond doubt. Prima facie in Latin means first appearance.
As mentioned earlier, the Right of Self-Representation is this right to represent oneself as Pro Sea. Presently, courts at all levels of the Criminal Justice system require that the defendant be aware and understand the disadvantages of representing one’s self as most people not practicing law, will not be aware of certain defenses that can facilitate their case. A person going Pro Sea will have to sign a waiver or
A writ of habeas corpus is a directive from a court requiring the government to justify the imprisonment of a citizen. Because of the writ of habeas corpus guarantee, an individual cannot be held for more than a short period of time without being formally charged with a crime. (McNamara, 2010) The Due process clause also affords the accused of the right to trial by a jury of ones peers. These case are handled so that in a federal proceeding formal charges can not be levied without a grand jury hearing where an indictment must be issued. The jury trial and grand jury guarantees are intended to protect private citizens from over-zealous police officers, prosecutors and judges.
Whether or not this man was punished and remained in jail was up to the prosecution. Heffernan’s critical decision would be whether or not to remove his thoughts on morality from his professional decision. The defendant had a legal right to a jury trial and a moral right to have it vindicated. Since the judge had refused to instruct the jury concerning the justifiable use of deadly force, the defendant had been denied that right. Heffernan was faced with whether
1). PA260-3: Analysis Constitional Protection In Criminal Law: Criminal defendants have several constitutional rights. Maybe, the most essential protection is the requirement that the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, defendants have other rights to. Including the right to, (1) remain silent (2) confront witness (3) have a public trial (4) have a jury trial (5) have a speedy trial
Braithwaite, supra, the Supreme Court held that reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony. The determination is to be made based on the totality of the circumstances as previously indicated in Stovall v. Denno, supra. The factors to be weighed against the corrupting effect of the suggestive procedure are as set forth in Neil v. Biggers, supra, summarized by the court in Manson to include: "...the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level or certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and confrontation." 432 U.S. 98, 114. Similar standards had previously been adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Lathan (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution involving the clause of double jeopardy states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” This statement gives no right to the government to prosecute or punish a criminal for the same offense. Going through trial in a case is not only financially straining for both the court and the individual but also emotionally. There are three conditions necessary for a defendant to have protection under double jeopardy against a second prosecution. The earlier prosecution must progress to the point of jeopardy attachment. Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense.
It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial. In the future of plea bargaining, I would like to see those who do choose to go to trial to receive no biased or threats of harsh sentences placed upon them simply because they chose not to agree to a plea bargain and maintain their constitutional right to remain innocent until proven