-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
/
s06-04-the-burden-of-proof.html
189 lines (173 loc) · 26.4 KB
/
s06-04-the-burden-of-proof.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<link href="shared/bookhub.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
<title>The Burden of Proof</title>
</head>
<body>
<div id=navbar-top class="navbar">
<div class="navbar-part left">
<a href="s06-03-the-court-system.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-left.png"></a> <a href="s06-03-the-court-system.html">Previous Section</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part middle">
<a href="index.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-up.png"></a> <a href="index.html">Table of Contents</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part right">
<a href="s06-05-end-of-chapter-material.html">Next Section</a> <a href="s06-05-end-of-chapter-material.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-right.png"></a>
</div>
</div>
<div id="book-content">
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04" condition="start-of-chunk" version="5.0" lang="en">
<h2 class="title editable block">
<span class="title-prefix">2.4</span> The Burden of Proof</h2>
<div class="learning_objectives editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_n01">
<h3 class="title">Learning Objectives</h3>
<ol class="orderedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_l01">
<li>Define the burden of proof.</li>
<li>Distinguish between the burden of production and the burden of persuasion.</li>
<li>Compare the civil and criminal burden of proof.</li>
<li>Compare inference and presumption.</li>
<li>Compare circumstantial and direct evidence.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_p01">The key to the success of a civil or criminal trial is meeting the <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">burden of proof</a><span class="glossdef">An obligation to prove a disputed charge, allegation, or defense.</span></span>. A <em class="emphasis">failure</em> to meet the burden of proof is also a common ground for appeal. In this section, you learn the burden of proof for the plaintiff, prosecution, and defendant. You also are introduced to different classifications of evidence and evidentiary rules that can change the outcome of the trial.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Definition of the Burden of Proof</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_p01">The burden of proof is a party’s responsibility to prove a disputed charge, allegation, or defense.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn02_009">Yourdictionary.com, “Definition of Burden of Proof,” accessed September 26, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.yourdictionary.com/burden-of-proof">http://www.yourdictionary.com/burden-of-proof</a>.</span> The burden of proof has two components: the <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">burden of production</a><span class="glossdef">The duty to present evidence to the trier of fact.</span></span> and the <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">burden of persuasion</a><span class="glossdef">The duty to convince the trier of fact to a certain standard.</span></span>. The burden of production is the obligation to <em class="emphasis">present</em> evidence to the judge or jury. The burden of persuasion is the duty to <em class="emphasis">convince</em> the judge or jury to a certain standard, such as <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">beyond a reasonable doubt</a><span class="glossdef">The burden of proof in a criminal case, which must be enough compelling evidence to overcome the defendant’s presumption of innocence.</span></span>, which is defined shortly. This standard is simply a measuring point and is determined by examining the quantity and quality of the evidence presented. “Meeting the burden of proof” means that a party has introduced enough compelling evidence to reach the standard defined in the burden of persuasion.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_p02">The plaintiff or prosecutor generally has the burden of proving the case, including every element of it. The defendant often has the burden of proving any defense. The trier of fact determines whether a party met the burden of proof at trial. The trier of fact would be a judge in a nonjury or <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">bench trial</a><span class="glossdef">A trial where the trier of fact is a judge, rather than a jury.</span></span>. In a <em class="emphasis">criminal</em> case, the trier of fact is almost always a jury because of the right to a jury trial in the Sixth Amendment. Jurors are not legal experts, so the judge explains the burden of proof in jury instructions, which are a common source of appeal.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Burden of Proof in a Civil Case</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s01_p01">Burdens of proof vary, depending on the type of case being tried. The plaintiff’s burden of proof in a civil case is called <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">preponderance of evidence</a><span class="glossdef">The burden of proof for the plaintiff and defendant in a civil trial, and for some defenses in a criminal prosecution, which is enough evidence to prove that it is more likely than not that the party should prevail.</span></span>. Preponderance of evidence requires the plaintiff to introduce slightly more or slightly better evidence than the defense. This can be as low as 51 percent plaintiff to 49 percent defendant. When preponderance of evidence is the burden of proof, the judge or jury must be convinced that it is “more likely than not” that the defendant is liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. Preponderance of evidence is a fairly low standard, but the plaintiff must still produce more and better evidence than the defense. If the plaintiff offers evidence of questionable quality, the judge or jury can find that the burden of proof is not met and the plaintiff loses the case.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s01_p02">The defendant’s burden of proof when proving a defense in a civil case is also preponderance of evidence. For example, in the O. J. Simpson civil case discussed in <a class="xref" href="storm_1.0-ch01#storm_1.0-ch01">Chapter 1 "Introduction to Criminal Law"</a>, O. J. Simpson failed to meet the burden of proving the defense of <em class="emphasis">alibi</em>. The defendant does not always have to prove a defense in a civil case. If the plaintiff does not meet the burden of proof, the defendant is victorious without having to present <em class="emphasis">any evidence at all</em>.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s02">
<h2 class="title editable block">Burden of Proof in a Criminal Prosecution</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s02_p01">The prosecution’s burden of proof in a criminal case is the most challenging burden of proof in law; it is <strong class="emphasis bold">beyond a reasonable doubt</strong>. Judges have struggled with a definition for this burden of proof. As Chief Justice Shaw stated nearly a century ago,</p>
<span class="blockquote block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s02_bl01">
<p class="para editable" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s02_p02">[w]hat is reasonable doubt? It is a term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It is not mere possible doubt; because every thing relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn02_010"><em class="emphasis">Commonwealth v. Webster</em>, 59 Mass. 295, 320 (1850), accessed September 26, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/59/59mass295.html">http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/59/59mass295.html</a>.</span></p>
</span>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s02_p03">In general, the prosecution’s evidence must overcome the defendant’s <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">presumption of innocence</a><span class="glossdef">The trier of fact must begin a criminal trial concluding that the defendant is innocent.</span></span>, which the Constitution guarantees as due process of law.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn02_011"><em class="emphasis">In re Winship</em>, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), accessed September 26, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0397_0358_ZO.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0397_0358_ZO.html</a>.</span> This fulfills the policy of criminal prosecutions, which is to punish the guilty, not the innocent. If even a slight chance exists that the defendant is innocent, the case most likely lacks convincing and credible evidence, and the trier of fact should acquit the defendant.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s02_p04">States vary as to their requirements for the defendant’s burden of proof when asserting a defense in a criminal prosecution.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn02_012">Findlaw.com, “The Insanity Defense among the States,” findlaw.com website, accessed October 1, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html">http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html</a>.</span> Different defenses also have different burdens of proof, as is discussed in detail in <a class="xref" href="storm_1.0-ch05#storm_1.0-ch05">Chapter 5 "Criminal Defenses, Part 1"</a> and <a class="xref" href="storm_1.0-ch06#storm_1.0-ch06">Chapter 6 "Criminal Defenses, Part 2"</a>. Some states require the defendant to meet the burden of production, but require the prosecution to thereafter meet the burden of persuasion, <em class="emphasis">disproving</em> the defense to a preponderance of evidence or, in some states, beyond a reasonable doubt. Other states require the defendant to meet the burden of production <em class="emphasis">and</em> the burden of persuasion. In these states, the defendant’s standard is typically preponderance of evidence, <em class="emphasis">not</em> beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not always have to prove a defense in a criminal prosecution. If the prosecution does not meet the burden of proof, the defendant is acquitted without having to present any evidence at all.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s03">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of a Failure to Meet the Burden of Proof</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s03_p01">Ann is on trial for first-degree murder. The only key piece of evidence in Ann’s trial is the murder weapon, which was discovered in Ann’s dresser drawer during a law enforcement search. Before Ann’s trial, the defense makes a motion to suppress the murder weapon evidence because the search warrant in Ann’s case was signed by a judge who was inebriated and mentally incompetent. The defense is successful with this motion, and the judge rules that the murder weapon is <em class="emphasis">inadmissible</em> at trial. The prosecution decides to proceed anyway. If there is no other convincing and credible evidence of Ann’s guilt, Ann does not need to put on a defense in this case. The prosecution will fail to meet the burden of proof and Ann will be acquitted.</p>
<div class="figure large editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s01_s03_f01">
<p class="title"><span class="title-prefix">Figure 2.8</span> Diagram of the Criminal Burden of Proof</p>
<img src="section_06/434a1e5ad595acf7e93a66e36a3b42c0.jpg">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s02">
<h2 class="title editable block">Inference and Presumption</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s02_p01">Parties can use two tools to help meet the burden of proof: <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">inference</a><span class="glossdef">A conclusion the trier of fact may make.</span></span> and <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">presumption</a><span class="glossdef">A conclusion the trier of fact must make.</span></span>. Jury instructions can include inferences and presumptions and are often instrumental in the successful outcome of a case.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s02_p02">An inference is a conclusion that the judge or jury <em class="emphasis">may</em> make under the circumstances. An inference is never mandatory but is a choice. For example, if the prosecution proves that the defendant punched the victim in the face after screaming, “I hate you!” the judge or jury can infer that the punch was thrown intentionally.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s02_p03">A presumption is a conclusion that the judge or jury <em class="emphasis">must</em> make under the circumstances. As stated previously, all criminal defendants are presumed innocent. Thus the judge or jury <em class="emphasis">must</em> begin any criminal trial concluding that the defendant is not guilty.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s02_p04">Presumptions can be <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">rebuttable</a><span class="glossdef">Can be overcome with evidence.</span></span> or <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">irrebuttable</a><span class="glossdef">Cannot be overcome with evidence.</span></span>. A party can disprove a <em class="emphasis">rebuttable</em> presumption. The prosecution can rebut the presumption of innocence with evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. An irrebuttable presumption is irrefutable and <em class="emphasis">cannot</em> be disproved. In some jurisdictions, it is an irrebuttable presumption that children under the age of seven are incapable of forming criminal intent. Thus in these jurisdictions children under the age of seven cannot be criminally prosecuted (although they may be subject to a juvenile adjudication proceeding).</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03">
<h2 class="title editable block">Circumstantial and Direct Evidence</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_p01">Two primary classifications are used for evidence: <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">circumstantial evidence</a><span class="glossdef">A type of evidence that indirectly proves a fact.</span></span> or <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">direct evidence</a><span class="glossdef">A type of evidence that directly proves a fact.</span></span>.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_p02">Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact. Fingerprint evidence is usually circumstantial. A defendant’s fingerprint at the scene of the crime <em class="emphasis">directly</em> proves that the defendant placed a finger at that location. It <em class="emphasis">indirectly</em> proves that because the defendant was present at the scene and placed a finger there, the defendant committed the crime. Common examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint evidence, DNA evidence, and blood evidence. Criminal cases relying on circumstantial evidence are more difficult for the prosecution because circumstantial evidence leaves room for doubt in a judge’s or juror’s mind. However, circumstantial evidence such as DNA evidence can be very reliable and compelling, so the prosecution can and often does meet the burden of proof using <em class="emphasis">only</em> circumstantial evidence.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_p03">Direct evidence directly proves a fact. For example, eyewitness testimony is often direct evidence. An eyewitness testifying that he or she saw the defendant commit the crime <em class="emphasis">directly</em> proves that the defendant committed the crime. Common examples of direct evidence are eyewitness testimony, a defendant’s confession, or a video or photograph of the defendant committing the crime. Criminal cases relying on direct evidence are easier to prove because there is less potential for reasonable doubt. However, direct evidence can be unreliable and is not necessarily preferable to circumstantial evidence. If an eyewitness is <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">impeached</a><span class="glossdef">When a witness is made to appear untruthful.</span></span>, which means he or she loses credibility, the witness’s testimony lacks the evidentiary value of reliable circumstantial evidence such as DNA evidence.</p>
<div class="table block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_t01" frame="all">
<p class="title"><span class="title-prefix">Table 2.2</span> Comparison of Circumstantial and Direct Evidence in a Burglary Case</p>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Evidence</th>
<th>Circumstantial</th>
<th>Direct</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Fiber from the defendant’s coat found in a residence that has been burglarized</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No—directly proves <strong class="emphasis bold">presence at the scene</strong>, not that the defendant committed burglary</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>GPS evidence indicating the defendant drove to the burglarized residence</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No—same explanation as fiber evidence</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Testimony from an eyewitness that she saw the defendant go into the backyard of the burglarized residence</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No—could prove trespassing because it directly proves <strong class="emphasis bold">presence at the scene</strong>, but it does not directly prove burglary</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Surveillance camera footage of the defendant purchasing burglar tools</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No—does not directly prove they were used on the residence</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Cell phone photograph of the defendant burglarizing the residence</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes—directly proves that the defendant committed the crime</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Witness testimony that the defendant confessed to burglarizing the residence</td>
<td>No</td>
<td>Yes—directly proves that the defendant committed the crime</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Pawn shop receipt found in the defendant’s pocket for items stolen from the residence</td>
<td>Yes</td>
<td>No—directly proves that the items were pawned, not stolen</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div class="callout block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_n01">
<h3 class="title">Casey Anthony Trial Video</h3>
<p class="simpara">Casey Anthony Verdict: Found Not Guilty of Murder</p>
<p class="para" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_p06">In this video, the jury foreperson in the Casey Anthony trial reads the trial verdict. Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder, manslaughter, and child abuse of her daughter, Caylee Anthony. The evidence in the case was all <em class="emphasis">circumstantial</em>, and the coroner did not determine the cause of the victim’s death.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn02_013">David Lohr, “Casey Anthony Verdict: NOT GUILTY of First-Degree Murder,” Huffingtonpost.com website, accessed August 24, 2011, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-verdict_n_890173.html#s303265&title=Casey_Anthony_Verdict">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-verdict_n_890173.html#s303265&title=Casey_Anthony_Verdict</a>.</span></p>
<div class="mediaobject">
<a data-iframe-code='<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3H6YxAEVJdY" condition="http://img.youtube.com/vi/3H6YxAEVJdY/0.jpg" vendor="youtube" width="450" height="340" scalefit="1"></iframe>' href="http://www.youtube.com/v/3H6YxAEVJdY" class="replaced-iframe" onclick="return replaceIframe(this)">(click to see video)</a>
</div>
</div>
<div class="key_takeaways editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_n02">
<h3 class="title">Key Takeaways</h3>
<ul class="itemizedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_l01">
<li>The burden of proof is a party’s obligation to prove a charge, allegation, or defense.</li>
<li>The burden of production is the duty to present evidence to the trier of fact. The burden of persuasion is the duty to convince the trier of fact to a certain standard, such as preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt.</li>
<li>
<p class="para">The civil burden of proof is preponderance of evidence, for both the plaintiff and the defendant. The criminal burden of proof for the prosecution is beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<ul class="itemizedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_l02">
<li>The criminal burden of proof for the defense is generally preponderance of evidence. States vary on whether they require the criminal defendant to meet both the burden of production and persuasion or just the burden of production. Different defenses also require different burdens of proof.</li>
<li>In states that require the defendant to meet only the burden of production, the prosecution must disprove the defense to a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, depending on the state and on the defense.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>An inference is a conclusion the trier of fact may make, if it chooses to. A presumption is a conclusion the trier of fact must make. A rebuttable presumption can be disproved; an irrebuttable presumption cannot.</li>
<li>Circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact. A fingerprint at the scene of the crime, for example, indirectly proves that because the defendant was present at the scene, the defendant committed the crime. Direct evidence directly proves a fact. If the defendant confesses to a crime, for example, this is direct evidence that the defendant committed the crime.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="exercises editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_n03">
<h3 class="title">Exercises</h3>
<p class="para" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_p04">Answer the following questions. Check your answers using the answer key at the end of the chapter.</p>
<ol class="orderedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch02_s04_s03_l03">
<li>Bria is asserting the insanity defense in her criminal prosecution for murder. In Bria’s state, defendants have the burden of production and persuasion to a preponderance of evidence when proving the insanity defense. Bria offers her own testimony that she is insane and incapable of forming criminal intent. Will Bria be successful with her defense? Why or why not?</li>
<li>Read <em class="emphasis">Patterson v. New York</em>, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). In <em class="emphasis">Patterson</em>, the defendant was on trial for murder. New York law reduced murder to manslaughter if the defendant proved extreme emotional disturbance to a <strong class="emphasis bold">preponderance of evidence</strong>. Did the US Supreme Court hold that it is <em class="emphasis">constitutional</em> to put this burden on the defense, rather than forcing the prosecution to disprove extreme emotional disturbance beyond a reasonable doubt? Which part of the Constitution did the Court analyze to justify its holding? The case is available at this link: <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/432/197/case.html">http://supreme.justia.com/us/432/197/case.html</a>.</li>
<li>Read <em class="emphasis">Sullivan v. Louisiana</em>, 508 U.S. 275 (1993). In <em class="emphasis">Sullivan</em>, the jury was given a constitutionally deficient jury instruction on beyond a reasonable doubt. Did the US Supreme Court hold that this was a prejudicial error requiring reversal of the defendant’s conviction for murder? Which part of the Constitution did the Court rely on in its holding? The case is available at this link: <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1069192289025184531&hl=en&as_sdt=2002&as_vis=1">http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1069192289025184531&hl=en&as_sdt=2002&as_vis=1</a>.</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id=navbar-bottom class="navbar">
<div class="navbar-part left">
<a href="s06-03-the-court-system.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-left.png"></a> <a href="s06-03-the-court-system.html">Previous Section</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part middle">
<a href="index.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-up.png"></a> <a href="index.html">Table of Contents</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part right">
<a href="s06-05-end-of-chapter-material.html">Next Section</a> <a href="s06-05-end-of-chapter-material.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-right.png"></a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<script type="text/javascript" src="shared/book.js"></script>
</body>
</html>