Difference between revisions of "Standards of Proof"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 22: Line 22:
  
 
==Reasonable Suspicion==
 
==Reasonable Suspicion==
Reasonable suspicion is the standard required before a police officer may stop and question 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 deangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman adn 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 clothignh 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 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>
  
 
==Probable Cause==
 
==Probable Cause==

Revision as of 11:29, 5 November 2010

Background

A criminal case involves shifting obligations between the prosecution and the defendant. In systems where the defendant is given the presumption of innoccence, the prosecution has the burden of proof in demonstrating the crime was committed by the defendant.

Burdens are allocated in shift risk of error from one party to the other.

Types of Burdens

  • Burden of Persuasion
  • Evidential Burden
  • Burden of Proof

Various Standards of Proof

Standardsofproof.jpg

Scintilla

A scintilla is the smallest amount of evidence possible. Rarely used in criminal law, scintilla is the standard used in some courts for denying the plaintiff a restraining order.

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."

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 [1] the court stated that reasonable suspicion meant that the police officer:

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"

Probable Cause

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.

Traditionally probable cause has been determined by a "totality of the circumstances" test. In Illinois v. Gates [2], a case involving probable cause based on an informant the court phrased the magistrate's task this way:

The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of the reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate has a "substantial basis for ... conclud[ing] that probable cause existed.

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.

Clear and Convincing Evidence

Proof Beyond a Reasonable 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.

Notes

  1. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
  2. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)