![]() ![]() If the district attorney proves only four out of the five elements beyond a reasonable doubt then the defendant is entitled to a not guilty verdict. For example, if a district attorney is trying to prove the crime of of robbery, then the district attorney must prove all of the following: 1) the defendant took an item, 2) from another person, 3) with force or fear 4) without consent or legal justification, and 5) without the intent to return to the item. Note: Every element of every criminal allegation must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Essentially, proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that the district attorney has presented sufficient evidence to a point where the juror believes the charge is true, and if the juror has any doubt as to the defendant's guilt, that doubt is subjectively unreasonable to that juror. This legal definition is sometimes confusing. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that the district attorney has presented evidence to a juror to the point where the juror has an abiding conviction that the criminal charge is true. In other words, insufficient evidence means that the prosecutor, who has the burden of proving a criminal charge to be true, does not have sufficient evidence of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Insufficient evidence is a negative defense, which means that the defendant asserts by implication (silence) or by testimony, that she did not commit the alleged offense, or that the prosecutor cannot prove that she committed the alleged offense. ![]() ![]() The defense of insufficient evidence is perhaps the most commonly relied upon defense in a criminal case. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |