Burden of Proof means that one party is responsible for proving the guilt of a criminal while another party defends innocence. A qualified criminal defense attorney is expeienced with the best action to take.
This goes without saying but proof needs to be present if a conviction is to occur. There are a few ways that proof can be collected and is regulated by the Standards of Proof.
Scintilla is a word meaning the slightest amount of evidence that could be considered. A step up from No evidence.
Reasonable Suspicion constitutes as proof in a case where one side has the burden of proof. Reasonable suspicion “requires specific, articulable and individualized suspicion” for it to be considered proof. This was ruled in conjunction with the case Terry v Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968). This allows to minimize poor police discretion.
Reasonable to believe is another way to prove guilt or innocence. Criminal defense lawyers know that reasonable suspicion occurs before an arrest or any confrontation between the police and civilian. Reasonable to believe has to do with post arrest and search of vehicles or property in conjunction with the suspected crime. In many cases it is reasonable to believe that there is evidence hiding somewhere, after reasonable suspicion has been accepted.
Probable Cause is born from suspicion. The different levels of suspicion can warrant different types of police interaction. For example, an officer does not need any reason to walk up to you on the street. They would need some type of suspicion to search you and probable cause to book you for a violent crime or crimes of that nature.
Some Credible Evidence refers to the minimum required amount of evidence in relation to a suspected crime to request a warrant. This is mostly used in the first stages of documenting proof.
Substantial Evidence is often used to discriminate between factual evidence and other types. It almost splits the case into two categories for reference on the ruling which is helpful in federal court.
Preponderance of the Evidence is a way to say that if the probability of truth is present, then it will be considered true. The area of family law uses this standard of proof because it is hard to be scientifically factual in some civil cases.
Clear and Convincing Evidence is the next level of factual from the afore mentioned Preponderance of Evidence. The keyword in the difference between the two is ‘substantially’. If the evidence is ‘substantially’ more likely to be true than not, it is considered clear and convincing evidence and is admissible in cases such as ‘pulling the plug’ on life support and personal injury cases.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the most commonly known way to secure proof. This literally means that there is no reasonable person who would doubt what has been offered as proof. By saying this phrase, you are securing your proof as fact by 99%.
Facts that can be scientifically proven are the best way to alleviate the burden of proof. It boils down to that the odds are with the defendant to win the case without proof. If you’ve ever played the game of RISK, it is similar to the rules for attacking and who gets the benefit. The strategy of the prosecutor should be worth more than the assumed innocence of the defendant for the plaintiff to win a case.