In this module, we’ll be examining an array of topics that examine an individual’s rights in regards to the criminal justice system. How much proof is enough to determine a crime has been committed? What is the burden of proof and who must shoulder this burden at different stages?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How much proof does a police officer need when investigating a crime that evidence supports the arrest of a particular suspect? We’re going to examine this in detail. We’ll start with the lowest rung on the burden of proof scale called mere suspicion. This is a hunch, something arouses your suspicion. It could be anything. A matching description to a suspect, a vehicle parked in a location near the occurrence of a crime. It’s not enough for you to make an arrest but it’s enough for you to look a bit more closely. Many times, when you take a closer look, the evidence you thought was there simply isn’t and your investigation is exculpatory, you find the suspect is less guilty. Or, it may lead you to other avenues of interest, awareness and investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The next rung on this ladder is a big one, probable cause. It’s more than a hunch, it’s articulable. You can say or submit in writing why this evidence supports the arrest of this particular individual. It’s not enough to find someone guilty of a crime, it’s not the job of the police officer to do that, but it is enough to pull them over in a vehicle, apply for an arrest or search warrant, or make a lawful arrest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The next stage is preponderance of the evidence. If your scale was 100%, this is 51% or more. This level of proof is more likely than not. This is an important benchmark in civil law, where you’re not finding someone guilty or not guilty, rather, you are determining whether or not someone is liable of wrongdoing. The outcome of this type of law are primarily monetary damages, compensatory and punitive. Compensatory damages compensate a person for their actual losses (property, lost wages, etc.) while punitive damages are meant to teach the wrongdoer a lesson. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
After preponderance of evidence is clear and convincing evidence. Again, this is an important distinction in some levels of civil law. Since we are focusing our attention on criminal justice and criminal law, we’ll move on the the next level of proof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As a student of criminal justice, it should be ingrained in you that the burden of this proof falls upon the prosecutor or district attorney. A criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty and that guilty must be beyond a reasonable doubt. There have been multiple occasions in criminal trials where the defense doesn’t call any witnesses whatsoever and simply states the state has not met their burden of proof. This is typically not a winning strategy in front of a jury but happens nonetheless. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The last parameter of the burden of proof scale is absolute certainty. Even is a defendant pleads guilty, there is still room for doubt of guilty. Perhaps the defendant is mentally ill or taking the rap for another person. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
During a criminal trial, the jury deliberates and returns a verdict (typically). This verdict is based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge will allow the defense to poll the jurors individually and question them as to their belief in the verdict. In the event of a hung jury, wherein the verdict cannot be reached unanimously, the judge allows both sides to discover the voting record of the jury. This assists both sides in determining a new strategy should the defendant be tried again<\/p>\n\n\n\n