Standards of Proof - Revision history

Ibjadmin: /* Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt */

2010-11-22T13:47:39Z

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 22 November 2010
Line 44:		Line 44:

	==Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt==		==Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt==
	Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the standard required in the United States for conviction of a criminal charge. The standard is generally not quantifiable as a percentage probability. The exact formulation of reasonable doubt has never been determined.		Proof Beyond a [[Reasonable Doubt]] is the standard required in the United States for conviction of a criminal charge. The standard is generally not quantifiable as a percentage probability. The exact formulation of reasonable doubt has never been determined.

	Chief Justice Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made this observation about the reasonable doubt standard in 1850:		Chief Justice Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made this observation about the reasonable doubt standard in 1850:

Cmattesich: /* Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt */

2010-11-17T10:37:34Z

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:37, 17 November 2010
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Chief Justice Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made this observation about the reasonable doubt standard in 1850:		Chief Justice Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made this observation about the reasonable doubt standard in 1850:

	<Blockquote>"[W]hat is reasonable doubt? It is a term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It is not mere possible doubt; because every thing relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of ~~allthe~~ evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. All the presumptions of law independent of evidence are in favor of innocence; and every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. If upon such proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal. For it is not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one arising from the doctrine of chances, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary; but the evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and judgment, of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. This we take to be proof beyond reasonable doubt." <ref>Commonwealth v. Webster, 59 Mass. 295, 320 (1850)</ref> </blockquote>		<Blockquote>"[W]hat is reasonable doubt? It is a term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It is not mere possible doubt; because every thing relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. All the presumptions of law independent of evidence are in favor of innocence; and every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. If upon such proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal. For it is not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one arising from the doctrine of chances, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary; but the evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and judgment, of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. This we take to be proof beyond reasonable doubt." <ref>Commonwealth v. Webster, 59 Mass. 295, 320 (1850)</ref> </blockquote>

	In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Victor v. Nebraska <ref>Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994)</ref>, the court held a similar jury instruction on reasonable doubt unconstitutional:		In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Victor v. Nebraska <ref>Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994)</ref>, the court held a similar jury instruction on reasonable doubt unconstitutional:

Cmattesich: /* Clear and Convincing Evidence */

2010-11-17T10:23:52Z

Clear and Convincing Evidence

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:23, 17 November 2010
Line 41:		Line 41:

	==Clear and Convincing Evidence==		==Clear and Convincing Evidence==
	Clear and ~~Convincing Evidence~~ is a standard employed in both criminal and civil courts. It is higher than the ~~Preponderance~~ standard and yet falls short of ~~Proof Beyond~~ a ~~Reasonable Doubt~~. Clear and ~~Convincing Evidence~~ is the standard used by the United States Supreme Court in Calderon v. Thompson, <Ref>Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998)</ref> where they concluded that a defendant who has been convicted but alleges factual innocence in a habeas motion must demonstrate by ~~Clear~~ and ~~Convinving Evidence~~ that “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence”. Other courts have concluded that the standard requires the proof that a fact is substantially more likely than not to be true.		Clear and convincing evidence is a standard employed in both criminal and civil courts. It is higher than the preponderance standard and yet falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Clear and convincing evidence is the standard used by the United States Supreme Court in Calderon v. Thompson, <Ref>Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998)</ref> where they concluded that a defendant who has been convicted but alleges factual innocence in a habeas motion must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence”. Other courts have concluded that the standard requires the proof that a fact is substantially more likely than not to be true.

	==Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt==		==Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt==

Cmattesich: /* Preponderance of the Evidence */

2010-11-17T10:22:56Z

Preponderance of the Evidence

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:22, 17 November 2010
Line 38:		Line 38:

	==Preponderance of the Evidence==		==Preponderance of the Evidence==
	Preponderance of the ~~Evidence~~, the standard used in civil cases in the United States and in criminal cases in some countries, is the standard of proof that requires the bearer show that the evidence shows a fact is more likely than not to have ~~occured~~. The standard is satisfied by a showing that the likelihood of ~~occurance~~ is more than 50 percent.		Preponderance of the evidence, the standard used in civil cases in the United States and in criminal cases in some countries, is the standard of proof that requires the bearer show that the evidence shows a fact is more likely than not to have occurred. The standard is satisfied by a showing that the likelihood of occurrence is more than 50 percent.

	==Clear and Convincing Evidence==		==Clear and Convincing Evidence==

Cmattesich: /* Probable Cause */

2010-11-17T10:05:45Z

Probable Cause

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:05, 17 November 2010
Line 29:		Line 29:

	==Probable Cause==		==Probable Cause==
	In the United States, ~~Probable Cause~~ is the standard required to effect a constitutional arrest or issue a valid search warrant.		In the United States, probable cause is the standard required to effect a constitutional arrest or issue a valid search warrant.

	Probable ~~Cause~~ is an objective legal standard that balances effective law enforcement against an individual's freedom from unwarranted invasion into their privacy. Whether or not probable cause exists or not will depend all the facts.		Probable cause is an objective legal standard that balances effective law enforcement against an individual's freedom from unwarranted invasion into their privacy. Whether or not probable cause exists or not will depend all the facts.

	Traditionally probable cause has been determined by a "totality of the circumstances" test. In Illinois v. Gates <ref> Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)</ref>, a case involving probable cause based on an informant the court phrased the magistrate's task this way:		Traditionally probable cause has been determined by a "totality of the circumstances" test. In Illinois v. Gates <ref> Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)</ref>, a case involving probable cause based on an informant the court phrased the magistrate's task this way:

Cmattesich: /* Reasonable Suspicion */

2010-11-17T09:59:47Z

Reasonable Suspicion

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 17 November 2010
Line 24:		Line 24:

	==Reasonable Suspicion==		==Reasonable Suspicion==
	Reasonable suspicion is the standard required before a police officer may stop and question or frisk an individual against their will. In Terry v. Ohio <ref> Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)</ref> the court stated that reasonable suspicion meant that the police officer:		Reasonable suspicion is the standard required before a police officer may stop and question or frisk an individual against their will. In Terry v. Ohio <ref> ''Terry v. Ohio,'' 392 U.S. 1 (1968)</ref> the court stated that reasonable suspicion meant that the police officer:

	<blockquote>''...observed unusual conduct which lead him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing with may be armed and dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries and nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is ~~entitlted~~ for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be useful to assault him"''</blockquote>		<blockquote>''...observed unusual conduct which lead him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing with may be armed and dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries and nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled (for the protection of himself and others in the area) to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be useful to assault him"''</blockquote>

	==Probable Cause==		==Probable Cause==

Cmattesich: /* Air of Reality */

2010-11-17T09:58:50Z

Air of Reality

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:58, 17 November 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:

	==Air of Reality==		==Air of Reality==
	In a criminal trial a defendant may be required to provide ~~evividence~~ sufficient to raise an issue -- such as the defendant's sanity at the time of alleged offense -- at trial. However, typically courts will require some evidence before they will permit the issue to be raised a trial. Typically, this quantum is more than a scintilla, but something less than reasonable suspicion. Some courts have characterized the evidentiary requirement as "Air of Reality."		In a criminal trial, a defendant may be required to provide evidence sufficient to raise an issue -- such as the defendant's sanity at the time of alleged offense -- at trial. However, typically courts will require some evidence before they will permit the issue to be raised a trial. Typically, this quantum is more than a scintilla, but something less than reasonable suspicion. Some courts have characterized the evidentiary requirement as the "Air of Reality."

	==Reasonable Suspicion==		==Reasonable Suspicion==

Cmattesich: /* Types of Burdens */

2010-11-17T09:58:02Z

Types of Burdens

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:58, 17 November 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:

	==Types of Burdens==		==Types of Burdens==
	A criminal defense attorney should keep in mind that there are generally two kinds of burdens in a criminal trial: ~~Burdens~~ of ~~Production~~ and ~~Burdens~~ of ~~Proof~~ or ~~Persuasion~~.		A criminal defense attorney should keep in mind that there are generally two kinds of burdens in a criminal trial: burdens of production and burdens of proof or persuasion.

	The ~~Burden~~ of ~~Proof~~ or ~~Persuasion~~ is the burden of convincing a factfinder that a given factual claim is true or false to a given degree of probability.		The burden of proof or persuasion is the burden of convincing a factfinder that a given factual claim is true or false to a given degree of probability.

	In contrast, the ~~Burden~~ of ~~Production~~, requires the prosecution or defense lawyer to produce some quantum of evidence in order to raise an issue before the fact finder.		In contrast, the burden of production, requires the prosecution or defense lawyer to produce some quantum of evidence in order to raise an issue before the fact finder.

	=Various Standards of Proof=		=Various Standards of Proof=

Ibjadmin: /* Proof Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt */

2010-11-12T13:40:36Z

Proof Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 12 November 2010
Line 58:		Line 58:
	==Proof Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt==		==Proof Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt==
	Proof Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt is rarely recognized as a legal standard because it presents a standard that may be legally impossible to achieve.		Proof Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt is rarely recognized as a legal standard because it presents a standard that may be legally impossible to achieve.
			----
			See [[Defenses]]

	=Notes=		=Notes=
	<references/>		<references/>

Ibjadmin: /* Types of Burdens */

2010-11-05T12:11:30Z

Types of Burdens

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:11, 5 November 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:

	==Types of Burdens==		==Types of Burdens==
	*Burden of Persuasion		A criminal defense attorney should keep in mind that there are generally two kinds of burdens in a criminal trial: Burdens of Production and Burdens of Proof or Persuasion.
	*Evidential Burden
	*Burden of ~~Proof~~		The Burden of Proof or Persuasion is the burden of convincing a factfinder that a given factual claim is true or false to a given degree of probability.

			In contrast, the Burden of Production, requires the prosecution or defense lawyer to produce some quantum of evidence in order to raise an issue before the fact finder.

	=Various Standards of Proof=		=Various Standards of Proof=