...Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009) Company: Starz/Anchor Bay Director: Peter Hyams Actors: Michael Douglas Jesse Metcalf Amber Tamblyn Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is a remake of a 1956 noir movie with the same title. It was submitted to theaters in 2009 by the Starz/Anchor Bay production company. Directed by Peter Hyams and starring Jesse Metcalf, Michael Douglas, and Amber Tamblyn, this movie is a riveting thriller that focuses on a successful DA that will do whatever it takes to win a case. I chose this film because it was fairly recent and the plot focused on the office of a District Attorney. In the movie, a district attorney, Martin Hunter (Michael Douglas) has a nearly flawless record of convicting criminals and surely has aspirations for the governor’s office. When ambitious rookie journalist, C.J. Nicholas (Jesse Metcalf) begins investigating Hunter for tampering with evidence to secure his convictions, the story takes an interesting turn. C.J., with the help of his videographer, frames himself as a murder suspect to make a grand attempt to catch the D.A. in an act of corruption. Assistant D.A. Ella Crystal (Amber Tamblyn) becomes romantically involved with C.J. and must choose between her recently convicted boyfriend and her potentially corrupt boss. Ella chooses to believe and help her boyfriend, thereby putting her own career and eventually life in jeopardy in order to obtain incriminating proof that puts the fate of both C.J's innocence and Hunter's reputation...
Words: 547 - Pages: 3
...In our diverse society, preconception and life experiences cause vast differences in evaluation of what establishes beyond a reasonable doubt. Some jury members may believe, that a defendant they can identify with could not have committed the crime and that the case facts are made up (Weinstein & Dewsbury 2007). Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, I would explain, is the standard that the prosecutor must meet. He or She must prove that there is no other logical explanation that can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime (Beyond a reasonable doubt (n.d.). I would instruct the jury like this, I have presented all the evidence in this case and believe that the evidence I have presented to you, proves beyond a reasonable...
Words: 319 - Pages: 2
...Mathematics is not murder; murder has no tongue yet evidence can speak beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge can conclude something to be true due to the preponderance of the evidence by their authority alone. In mathematics there is no judge, there is no jury, and there is no authority, there is only truth and falsehood. Our society prides itself on each’s ability to have an opinion on everything no matter how ludicrous. However, in mathematics is that your opinion is irrelevant unless you can prove it beyond “beyond reasonable doubt” and you can prove it it be absolutely true. In this essay I intend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that absolute certainty is attainable in theoretical mathematics, and to investigate into the possibility and...
Words: 1273 - Pages: 6
...of proof beyond reasonable doubt which 99% of probable cause is needed. The United States Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the need of proof beyond reasonable doubt is under the Due Process Clause which is under the fourteenth amendment. Questions: Is it necessary to need proof beyond a reasonable doubt for Due Process when a juvenile delinquent is charged with a crime that is considered an adult offense? Facts: Mr. Winship was charged with a crime of Larceny. However, Mr. Winship is a twelve-year-old boy so he would be considered as a juvenile and that larceny crime would never be charged to him. However, Mr. Winship was found guilty of the Larceny as an adult. The Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was overruled due to the lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Decision: The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant split decision to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt even being a juvenile charged with an adult offense. Judgement: The Courts found that the lesser court’s decision was correct because of the constitutional requirements for juveniles as well as adults. Concurring Opinion: Justice Harlan states that despite the age of the defendant, the courts should not use lesser punishments in the juvenile system. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Black stated that the Due Process Clause found under the fourteenth amendment would explicitly protect the defendant but not in cases of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Principal...
Words: 327 - Pages: 2
...The case of Kansas v. Gleason was chosen by the U.S. Supreme Court to answer the question of, “Does the eighth amendment require that a capital-sentencing jury be affirmatively instructed that mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?” I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court should say yes. I think this because mitigating circumstances have a tendency to be slightly if not entirely subjective. This does not violate the eighth amendment, which protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment. Deciding on mitigating circumstances, when figuring the punishment of the defendant, is not a form of cruel and unusual punishment. There is not any way that I can think of, that a mitigating circumstance that the...
Words: 317 - Pages: 2
...in some states death penalty if was results in deaths. For example, when someone is sentenced to so many years in jail for a felony robbery or murder. Whereas, Civil law the defendant is remanded by the court to pay restitution with no incarceration. For example, when Capital One takes a client to court for defaulting on his or her agreed contract to pay on the credit card. The court may have the defendant pay restitution to the plaintiff, which is Capital one. The standard proof of crimes must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Meaning, when the accused is being prosecuted, the prosecutor has to prove whether or not the defendant is guilty or not. When there is beyond reasonable doubt between the judge or jury, the defendant must be found not guilty. If the judge or jury do see unreasonable doubt, then they must find the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, someone being accused of murder, the prosecutor must prove to the courts beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. Whereas, the standard of proof in civil lawsuits is preponderance of evidence. This is...
Words: 657 - Pages: 3
...Innocent Criminal – Woolmington v DPP The legal maxim of ‘innocence until proven guilty’ was not uniquely established prior to the decision of this case. It is only reasonable for a person charged with an offence to not have to prove innocence. The onus is on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused whom only need only raise after presentation of evidence, reasonable doubt of his guilt .Even if this explanation is not accepted, but reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted. Relevant material facts The appellant, Mr Reginal Woolmington, 21, was married to Mrs Violet Kathleen Woolmington, 17. On November 22nd 1934, Mrs Woolmington left the appellant’s house to live with her Mother, Mrs Lillian Smith. Despite the appellant’s pleas for her to return to live with him, Mrs Woolmington would not. Next door to Mrs Smith lived her sister, Mrs Brine. During the morning of the 10th of December 1934, Mrs Brine discovered her niece, Mrs Woolmington lying on the kitchen floor of Mrs Smith’s house, shot through the heart, deceased. Mrs Brine gave evidence, for the following sequence of events. Mrs Brine heard and recognised, the appellants voice challenging to the gist of ‘are you going to return home?’ Mrs Brine also detailed hearing the back door of next door being slammed shut, and then after a muffled voice, coming from inside Mrs Smith’s house. She then heard the discharge of a gun. Upon hearing this she then looked out the front of her...
Words: 2009 - Pages: 9
...1. Getting started It is a matter of some interest that logic and the law should share so many of their foundational concepts – concepts such as proof, evidence, truth, inference, probability, plausibility, presumption and reasonableness – and yet should have had very little to say to one another within living memory. It is not especially surprising that logic and the law should have suffered (I use the word in its Latin sense) this alienation. With regard to its foundational concepts – for example, the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the concept of the balance of probabilities, the concept of the reasonable person – the law embeds am implied epistemology of implicity. There exists among practitioners, especially judges, the view that definitions and formalizations of such notions are both unnecessary and is liable to conceptual distortion. But definitions and formalizations are mother’s milk to logicians. Where the law favours approximation and contextually sensitive nuance, logicians thrive on exactitude and rigour. So why wouldn’t the lawyers and logicians go about their business without the regard of the one for the other? It would be wrong to leave the impression that there is no analytical exactitude in the law. It would also be a mistake to suggest that there has been no contact with the formal disciplines. Trials are often complex and judgements often embed exhaustive and detailed analyses of relevant points of law. In recent years probability theorists have...
Words: 14399 - Pages: 58
...Criminal Law vs. Civil Law There are numerous differences between criminal and civil law. Criminal law is defined as a body of rules and statutes that defines conduct prohibited by the government because it threatens and harms public safety and welfare and that establishes punishment to be imposed for the commission of such acts. (The Free Dictionary by Farlex) Civil law is defined as the body of laws of a state or nation dealing with the rights of private citizens. (The Free Dictionary by Farlex) In an attempt to explain the difference, you must first understand criminal law. Criminal laws are substantive and divided into categories of misdemeanors and felonies. The primary difference between misdemeanor and felony is the distinct punishments and issues regarding severity. In general, a misdemeanor is a violation of a meager crime. Misdemeanors typically do not involve violent actions or crimes that cause great harm to a society. Common forms of misdemeanors include: resisting arrest, simple battery, shoplifting, public intoxication, and in some states possession and use of marijuana. In contrast, a felony is a serious crime, such as rape, murder, kidnapping, grand theft auto, or assault with a deadly weapon. Convicted felons will undoubtedly face jail time. The Federal Government states that a felony is any act that carries a minimum one-year prison sentence (Difference Between a Misdemeanor and Felony). In criminal law and with criminal court the prosecution is always...
Words: 756 - Pages: 4
...847,578,057.50); and by collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by himself and/or in connivance with John Does & Jane Does, commissions or percentages by reason of said purchases of shares of stock in the amount of P189,700,000.00 more or less, from Belle Corporation which became part of the Deposit in the equitable Bank under the account name of ‘Jose Velarde’. Petitioner wishes to impress upon the constitutionality of RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder), as amended by RA 7659. He therefore makes a stringent call for this Court to subject the Plunder Law to the crucible of constitutionality mainly because, according to him, (a) it suffers from the vice of vagueness; (b) it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions; and, (c) it...
Words: 4457 - Pages: 18
...Assignment 5 A- The Juries act of 1974 (amended by the criminal justice and courts act 2015) lays down the following rules in order for a candidate to qualify to become a juror; the candidate must be aged between 18-75, be on the electoral roll and must have lived in the UK for at least 5 years from age 13. The criminal justice act of 2003 broadened the boundaries of who can become a juror, since this act was initiated police, judges, doctors are now also expected to sit as a juror even though they were once excused from the service. However, you can still be excused from jury duty for exceptional purposes, e.g. if you have an exam, if you are pregnant, if you are ill or on holiday. If you are excused, your date will postponed to another time. There are some people that are completely excluded from jury duty, for example; the mentally ill, people in active service (Soldiers in Afghanistan etc.), if you served longer than 5 years in prison or if you are serving a community order most of these exceptions are highly understandable- for example; the mentally ill. This isn’t a completely limiting factor I.e. if the juror had depression and is being treated with medication and is perfectly able to think straight then there is no reason that they cannot be discriminated against. However, if the mental illness is more extreme such as bipolar or Schizophrenia the court will not accept them to sit on the jury. This would only be fair as the juror would not have a clear mental understanding...
Words: 936 - Pages: 4
...with non-criminal things such as contracts/business, and things such as divorce, etc. You can be charged under both criminal and civil proceedings though. A perfect example is OJ Simpson being aquitted of criminal charges but being found guilty in civil proceedings. Probably the biggest difference between the two is what is called "BURDEN OF PROOF" In criminal proceedings the burden is "BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT" for someone to be convicted. This means that the evidence points substantially towards guilt and there is little to no question of guilt. For a jury in this case you would need everyone in agreement or the case is a mistrial. Unaminity is the key. In civil proceedings all that is required is "preponderance of evidence" which means that if it is found that it was more likely than not that an incident occured then you can be convicted. This kind of proceeding is really a "who has the best evidence" type of case. Only a majority of jury members decision is needed in this case. ANSWER 2 1. Criminal Law cases must prove the person's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, whilst civil cases must be proved on the balance of probability 2. The main difference however is who the law is aimed at. Theoretically criminal law is a considered to be harming all members of society. Consequently, the victim of the criminal case is all of society; hence the case is brought on behalf of the police and prosecution on behalf of society. In contrast to this, civil/private...
Words: 520 - Pages: 3
...deals with non-criminal things such as contracts/business, and things such as divorce, etc. You can be charged under both criminal and civil proceedings though. A perfect example is OJ Simpson being aquitted of criminal charges but being found guilty in civil proceedings. Probably the biggest difference between the two is what is called "BURDEN OF PROOF" In criminal proceedings the burden is "BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT" for someone to be convicted. This means that the evidence points substantially towards guilt and there is little to no question of guilt. For a jury in this case you would need everyone in agreement or the case is a mistrial. Unaminity is the key. In civil proceedings all that is required is "preponderance of evidence" which means that if it is found that it was more likely than not that an incident occured then you can be convicted. This kind of proceeding is really a "who has the best evidence" type of case. Only a majority of jury members decision is needed in this case. 1. Criminal Law cases must prove the person's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, whilst civil cases must be proved on the balance of probability 2. The main difference however is who the law is aimed at. Theoretically criminal law is a considered to be harming all members of society. Consequently, the victim of the criminal case is all of society; hence the case is brought on behalf of the police and prosecution on behalf of society. In contrast to this, civil/private law...
Words: 515 - Pages: 3
...Decision The case Kansas vs. Carr raises many questions about the death penalty, especially in relation to the Eighth Amendment. One of the main questions in this case has to do with jury instructions in the penalty stage of the trial. (Kansas v. Carr) The district judge in this phase of the trial failed to adequately instruct the jury on the correct standard of review for mitigating evidence. Unlike other types of evidence in any criminal proceedings, mitigating evidence need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor does the jury need to be unanimous on the validity of mitigating evidence. Did the district judge violate the Eighth Amendment when he failed to explicitly explain this to the jury? Upon review, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that yes, he did. By failing to “affirmatively instruct” (Kansas v. Carr) the jury on the proper standard of...
Words: 1080 - Pages: 5
...SION Thrown into a positive form, the doctrine contended for in the foregoing chapters is this: 1. The whole management and direction of human life depends upon the question whether or not there is a God and a future state of human existence. If there is a God, but no future state, God is nothing to us. If there is a future state, but no God, we can form no rational guess about the future state. 2. If there is no God and no future state, reasonable men will regulate their conduct either by inclination or by common utilitarianism (p. 167) . 3. If there is a God and a future state, reasonable men will regulate their conduct by a wider kind of utilitarianism (pp. 182–83) . 4. By whatever rule they regulate their conduct, no room is left for any rational enthusiasm for the order of ideas hinted at by the phrase ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity’; for, whichever rule is applied, there are a vast number of matters in respect of which men ought not to be free; they are fundamentally unequal, and they are not brothers at all, or only under qualifications which make the assertion of their fraternity unimportant. It is impossible to carry on speculations which lead to such results without being led to ask oneself the question whether they are or can be of any sort of importance? The questions which I have been discussing have been debated in various forms for thousands of years. Is this consistent with the possibility that they can ever be solved, and, if not, why should...
Words: 4140 - Pages: 17
