As mentioned before, the prosecution has to prove that a defendant committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt. Doubt can be inserted into a case by the defense calling the prosecution's case into question. For example, this can be done by presenting witnesses who claim the defendant was with them at a different location when the crime occurred.
Being found "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence was not strong enough for a guilty verdict. In conclusion, no one needs to prove that you are innocent in order to avoid conviction for the crime. Our criminal justice system does not require proof that you are innocent but rather, that the jury have no reasonable doubts about whether or not you committed the crime.
If they do have doubts, you will be declared "not guilty" and charges will be dropped, regardless of whether or not you were actually innocent or guilty. This, however, apparently did nothing of consequence in clarifying the interpretation from then, until now.
Courts in certain States of America are, instructed not to offer an explanation of what constitutes Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Is being 'nearly certain', or 'almost sure' a sufficient benchmark to determine if an individual should be incarcerated? Jurymen themselves set the standard of what is reasonable in the circumstances. So bearing this in mind, a successful outcome in a criminal case is one where the prosecution have failed to prove their case Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
This leads to an acquittal. There is no verdict of innocence. A person does not and cannot prove that they are innocent.
What an accused person needs to do throughout a trial is to present exculpatory evidence and explanation to counter inculpatory evidence provided by the Prosecution. The aim is to raise a doubt in the mind of jurors. Inculpatory evidence, is evidence which has the propensity to indicate an accused person's participation in the crime with which that person has been charged with. Exculpatory evidence is any and all relevant information, including, but not confined to, witnesses or statements which tend to indicate the innocence of the accused person; and to negate inculpatory evidence provided to the Court by the Prosecution.
This includes evidence in the possession of the prosecuting authorities, notwithstanding that it has merit in relation to the accused person's case. The defence aims to create a reasonable doubt , in relation to the allegations made by the Prosecution so that the jury will not be satisfied to the relevant standard of proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
Recently, the significance of reasonable doubt was considered by the High Court of Australia in Pell v The Queen [] HCA 12 , which found that on the evidence there was a reasonable doubt as to Cardinal Pell's guilt and what followed from that was that there was a significant possibility that an innocent person had been convicted.
It could well be said that the difference between proving someone guilty and not satisfying the jury Beyond Reasonable Doubt, is the exculpatory evidence and explanations that outweigh or negate the inculpatory evidence. Engaging expert legal advice immediately to consider what investigations and material are necessary to raise a doubt about the prosecution case is the first step in having the best chance at a positive outcome from any criminal case.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
All Rights Reserved. Dropping and dismissing a charge are two different things. A prosecutor or arresting officer can decide to drop a charge brought against a defendant — or perhaps reduce the charge to a lesser offense — perhaps even before the charge is formally filed.
It may be due to lack of sufficient evidence or discovering new evidence or testimony which contradicts the arrest. Contrary to popular belief, the victim in a criminal case cannot decide to drop a charge. Beyond these measures, a defendant may also accept a plea bargain or seek a mistrial. Indeed, there are many ways a case can be resolved which may benefit the defendant.
You should engage a knowledgeable criminal defense lawyer to look for reasons why that should happen and then present them to the prosecutor or judge. Simply put, it represents one type of verdict or decision given at the conclusion of a criminal trial. Innocent, on the other hand, does not refer to the finding of Not Guilty. Its connotation is broader and encompasses a moral, philosophical, and religious aspect to it. The dictionary defines Innocent as the absence of guilt and acting in good faith without any knowledge of objections, defects, or illegal circumstances.
This means a person whose character is not known for committing crimes or viewed as someone not capable of inflicting harm. From a legal perspective, however, the term may denote several different connotations that ultimately tends to blur the distinction between Innocent and Not Guilty.
Given that, the prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt to convict the defendant.
0コメント