Conversely, the burden of proof in a civil case (over money damages) is "more likely than not", which is a lower standard than that in a criminal case. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high burden, and rightfully so, because the penalties in the criminal law include deprivation of liberty (going to prison). However, if the prosecution cannot prove that the same defendant is guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element of the charge, then the defendant is considered "not guilty." Beyond a Reasonable Doubt A defendant may be shown to have played some role in a crime, in which case he or she would not be purely "innocent". The term "innocent" connotes a complete lack of involvement and/or culpability. That is because a prosecutor generally litigates only whether a given criminal defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty" - as measured by the applicable burden of proof. One may observe that the term "innocent" does not appear in the foregoing discussion of stages of a criminal case. If a juror has no reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims required to be proved by the prosecution, such juror should find the defendant guilty. If a juror has a reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims required to be proved by the prosecution, such juror must find the defendant not guilty. Juries must presume that the defendant is not guilty until such jurors are convinced from the evidence that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is not required to prove he/she is not guilty. The prosecution has the burden to prove the defendant is guilty.
0 kommentar(er)
