...Burden of proof: described as a fact that is legal established in order to get a party's point across 1) Discuss the differences in burden of proof under criminal and civil law. Criminal law: The Burden of Production: The burden of proving the defendant's guilt is up to the prosecution, and they must establish the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecution is the attorney charging against the person committing the crime. Reasonable doubt is making sure that the prosecutor has no lack of evidence for the jurors. Civil law: Burden of Persuasion: The plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of evidence which is only needing 50% proof that the defendant is guilty. When a case is lawful, all evidence must be presented...
Words: 406 - Pages: 2
...Best Answer Answer Quite simply, criminal law deals with violations of statutory crime and its punishment, civil law 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. 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;...
Words: 520 - Pages: 3
...explain the reason for the rule. 2. State and explain three ways in which the approach to the use of evidence in civil cases differs from the approach in criminal cases. 3. What is the role of the prosecutor in handling evidence at trial? The role of the judge? The role of the jury? What is meant by the statement, “The burden of proof of guilt in a criminal case is on the prosecution throughout the trial”? 4. Define burden of proof, burden of going forward, and burden of persuasion. The Burden of proof means that the prosecutor must prove the guilt of the accused person and with that; the burden will never shift to throughout the trial. The burden of going forward means that at the beginning of the trial, the party will submit evidence that the court will decide if it’s good enough to use towards the burden of proof and if it will prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of persuasion means, being able to persuade the factfinder that the evidence produced by one side is indeed true. Ingram, J.L. (2015) Criminal Evidence. (12th Ed.) Anderson Publishing Co. 5. In some instances, the defendant has the burden of proving affirmative defenses. Does this violate the Constitution? Explain your answer with respect to several affirmative defenses, including the federal insanity defense. I believe this...
Words: 900 - Pages: 4
...In a criminal setting, the prosecution has the onus to prove that the defendant has committed the offence; this is called the burden of proof. The standard of proof that the prosecution has to prove is beyond reasonable doubt (Findlay et al, 2015). This means that the Prosection has to do much more than just persuade the court that the offence had more than likely taken place, they must prove it to a point which leaves no reasonable doubt in the court room (Nettheim & Chisholm, 2012). 2. What are the differences between summary and indictable offences? (3 marks) Summary and indictable offences are two separate classifications of offences; these are typically found in the Summary Offences Act 1988 and the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). One of the first differences between summary and indictable offences is the document that is presented in court. An indictable offence is presented using an indictment document, which sets out the particulars of the charge. In contrast a summary offence is presented typically with a police report document which is a less formal document....
Words: 504 - Pages: 3
...case made out -- Sedition Act, 1948, ss. 3(1) & 4(1) -- Criminal Procedure Code (F.M.S. Cap. 6), s. 180 -- Federal Constitution, art. 10 1986 1 MLJ 512 at 513 In this case the respondent was charged with uttering seditious words, an offence under the Sedition Act, 1948. At the close of the prosecution case, counsel submitted that there was no case to answer. Held: (1) all that is required at the close of the prosecution case is for the prosecution to discharge their evidential burden by adducing sufficient evidence to raise a prima facie case against the accused. At that stage, a trial judge should not consider whether or not a case has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused. If no evidence is called for the defence, then, and then only, the tribunal of fact must decide whether the prosecution has succeeded in discharging the persuasive burden by proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) in this case the prosecution has discharged their evidential burden by adducing evidence of primary facts. The accused must therefore be called to enter on his defence. Cases referred to Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor [1981] 2 MLJ 49 Reg v Burns & Ors (1886) 16 Cox CC 355 Wallace-Johnson v King [1940] AC 231 240 Reg v Sullivan (1868) 11 Cox CC 44 52-5358-59 Reg v Burdett (1820) 4 B & Ald 95 131; 106 ER 873 137-8 Rex v Aldred (1909) 22 Cox CC 1 3 Emperor v Sadashiv AIR 1947 PC 82 84 Melan v Public Prosecutor [1971] 2 MLJ 280 282 Assa Singh v...
Words: 4723 - Pages: 19
...experience working in those departments. A coworker, however, has suggested it is because Samuel is African-American. He applied for a supervisory position in his own department, for which he thinks he is qualified. He did not get the position; however, a white male in his same department was hired for the position. All of the supervisors in his department are white and minorities hold all of the menial jobs. When he complains to the Human Resource Department, he does not get a response. His supervisor appears to be retaliating by finding fault in his work after he complained to the Human Resource Department. Research in Support of My Answer Appellate Cases In Carryl v MacKay Shields, LLC, Carryl, the plaintiff and employee, met his burden of proof establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination in pay; however, MacKay Shields was able to provide legitimate reasons for the non-discriminatory disparity. They stated that the plaintiff’s Caucasian "peer" had more duties and provided the majority of the team’s income. Because the...
Words: 2426 - Pages: 10
...of the husband by the wife, the defense will be trying to use self-defense as the defense in the reasoning of the plea of not guilty. There are four elements that self-defense is made up of: 1. It has to be an unprovoked attack, 2. Necessity, 3. Proportionality, and 4. Reasonable belief. In the case for both the defense and prosecution all of these elements will be looked into. Also I will look at and consider as to whether it could have been considered a preemptive strike or retaliation as neither of those can happen if self-defense is to be used as the justification. Prosecution: Since this case is happening in Kansas the prosecution will have the burden of proof no matter what. This comes from 51.050 Defense – Burden of Proof which states: “The defendant raises self-defense as a defense…….The state’s burden of proof does not shift to the defendant.” There are two ways that the prosecution could go at prosecuting the defendant. The first is going at the gut of the defendant and getting the crime declared to be murder in the first degree. For this to be declared the crime the prosecution will have to prove that the defendant intentionally killed her husband, the killing was done with...
Words: 1935 - Pages: 8
...Civil Procedure v. Criminal Procedure ENC 1102 34 Week 11 Individual Work Civil Procedure v. Criminal Procedure Civil procedure relates to the process where two parties bring a case to the court for a decision on a particular problem. These problems can include but are not limited to divorces, estate distribution, work men’s comp., injury cases, or even matters such as discrimination in the workplace. Criminal procedure applies to the process where the state or federal government is charging and trying someone for a crime that was committed (Civil Procedure, 2012). The rules in civil procedure are different than those in criminal procedure because the actions that need to be taken are different. Firstly, civil procedure requires that a civil case must begin by filing a complaint. The complaint is then, served to the offending party. Once the defending party receives the complaint, they then drafts and files an answer with the court. A party in a civil case can be anyone including people, businesses, and government personnel. When the parties go in front of the court in a civil case, it is to determine whether a person was injured and if they were injured, how much should be compensated for that injury. All of this information pertaining to the civil case is specifically drafted into the court documents (American Bar, 2012). Civil cases, also, have some Constitutional protection in place. For example, the parties involved in a case must file and receive consent of the...
Words: 940 - Pages: 4
...Central Government Act Section 141 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 141. Unlawful assembly.-- An assembly of five or more persons is designated an" unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is- First.- To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 10[ the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second.- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth.- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth.- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation.- An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly. Central Government Act Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 447. Punishment for criminal trespass.-- Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend...
Words: 5587 - Pages: 23
...Section 24 of the Evidence Act says Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.—A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise,1 having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. tc "24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.—A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise,2 having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him." [1] Introduction: The word “confession” appears for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section comes under the heading of Admission so it is...
Words: 2261 - Pages: 10
...say might annoy people or disappoint them. In fact, showing what you mean when you’re teaching something is very helpful for society to understand better. And, also, words sometimes nowadays don’t mean the most understandable thing for people, you need to show it if you want to say it, or they will not believe you. Talking about if they will believe you or not, it depends on what you’re talking. For example, if you want to impress somebody, you need to show how impressive you are and tell always the truth before telling him or her lies. Because of that type of issues, people are starting to reject words that people (such as magazines) say without proof. Years ago, things were different because when someone said something, real or unreal, people used to believe in it. Of course, some kinds of things are still believed without proof, but that’s just because people want it to be real but the truth is that they aren’t. Truth or lie, people nowadays must show what they mean by actions that sometimes make people annoyed. In our society, things are getting very complicated because nobody agrees in what to believe in. Also, people say something but they don’t have any actions to show what they’re saying. In fact, there’s an action for everything you want to say, but finding the action is the hardest part. But, when people start finding it, it becomes very valuable. In fact, the few people that found the best action to explain something they mean to say; have had honors and were very...
Words: 411 - Pages: 2
...Another point that needs to be considered is our griever’s compassion towards his fellow co-worker, Mr. Butler. Knowing the uncomfortable relationship between him and Mr. Chevalier, who is the boss, our griever was concerned that Mr.Butler would have a possibility of losing his job although his intention was not realistically harming Mr. Chevalier. Our griever understood that Mr.Butler has been working hard for the university for 15 years and it would be unfair for him to be fired due to Under 7:4427: Compassion, it is written that It is a well-settled principle of arbitration law that a board of arbitration should not invoke its discretionary powers to mitigate a penalty on compassionate grounds alone. 1 …On the other hand, the view has also been expressed that if, at the end of a case, an arbitrator harbours any reasonable doubt as to the propriety of a sanction, then the grievor should be given the benefit of that doubt. In the past, similar cases have happened that we could relate to this problem. First case occurred in National Car Rental Inc. The greivor in this case left work without permission to drive company’s vehicle. However, it was found that greivor’s action was motivated by a legimate concern for the safety of a loved one who appeared to be in danger. Evidently, the arbitrator reinstated the grievor to his formal position. Another case that we could relate to occurred in St. Lawrence Seaway Company. The greivor got into an argument with the manager during the meeting...
Words: 442 - Pages: 2
...To distinguish between relevancy and admissibility, I would like to explain the meaning of relevancy and admissibility before we proceed to the difference between these two concepts. According to Janab’s Key to Evidence, relevancy refers to the degree of connection and probative value between a fact that is given in evidence and the issue to be proved. Relevancy of facts had been provided from Section 5 to 55 of Evidence Act 1950. By referring to the illustration (a) provided in Section 5 where A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death. There are three facts in issue to be proved - A’s beating B with the club; A’s causing B’s death by the beating; and A’s intention to cause B’s death. A fact is relevant when it is so related to the fact in issue, that they render the fact in issue probable or improbable. For example, to prove the third facts in issue in the example just now, the facts that A and B was having quarrel before the murder happens is relevant to prove the third facts in issue which is A’s intention to cause B’s death. Admissibility involves the process whereby the court determines whether the Law of Evidence permits that relevant evidence to be received by the court. The concept of admissibility is often distinguished from relevancy. Relevancy is determined by logic and common sense, practical or human experience, and knowledge of affairs. On the other hand, The admissibility of evidence, depends first...
Words: 921 - Pages: 4
...The first piece of evidence that shows reasonable doubt is the uniqueness of the knife. In the play, the storekeeper identified the knife and said it was the only one of its kind he had in stock. Also, one juror stated, “it’s a very strange knife. I’ve never seen one like it before in my life. Neither had the storekeeper who sold it to him.” (Pg. 23-24). Later, juror 8 reaches into his pocket and takes out a knife and states, “Look at it! It’s the same knife!”…”I hot it in a little junk shop around the corner from the boy’s house. It costs two dollars.” (Pg. 24) After discussing the uniqueness of the knife, the jurors decided there was reasonable doubt when the old man’s testimony came into the question. In this play, the second piece of evidence that shows reasonable doubt is the old man’s testimony. An old man lived right underneath the room where the murder took place. He heard loud noises at 12:10 from upstairs. It sounded like a fight to him and he heard the boy say, “I’m gonna kill you.” He heard a body fall a second later, and he saw the boy run out of the apartment. The old man called the police and they found a knife in the father’s chest. The old man states that he took 15 seconds to get out of bed and see the boy run down the stairs. However, juror 8 proves that the old man’s timing was off because it is impossible for an old man, who carries two canes, to walk and see the boy run out of the building in 15 seconds. Also, the jurors prove that the old...
Words: 520 - Pages: 3
...The best confirmation principle is essentially precisely what it sounds like: a standard of proof requiring the "best" proof of something be conceded at trial or amid a hearing. Much of the time, this implies the first of a report or protest (or a certainly precise duplicate) must be the one utilized as a part of court, unless it has been lost or devastated. The best proof principle influences both genuine confirmation, or physical proof, and narrative proof, or recordings of data utilized as proof. In both cases, the "genuine article" – a damaged item in an items obligation case or the first recording from a security camera, for instance – is by and large favored over a duplicate of narrative proof or a photo, graph, or model of genuine confirmation....
Words: 1452 - Pages: 6
