Heller: A Constitutional Right to Self-Defense & the Burden of Proof in Criminal Trials

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Michael Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Constitutional Right

In Camera Inspections of Privileged Records in Sexual Assault Trials: Balancing Defendants' Rights and State Interests Under Massachusetts's Bishop Test

1995 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-164
Author(s):  
Ellen M. Crowley
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Assault ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
State Legislature ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Case Basis

A sexual assault trial requires a court to balance evidentiary privileges enacted by a state legislature against a criminal defendant's constitutional trial rights. State legislatures enact various privileges which either limit or prohibit the discovery of confidential communications in criminal trials. Such statutes reflect a firmly based legislative effort to protect citizens’ private and personal confidences from unwarranted public scrutiny. When a defendant charged with sexual assault seeks to compel discovery of the victim's privileged medical, psychiatric, or counseling records, a conflict inevitably arises. States and victims assert that courts must respect statutory assurances of confidentiality; defendants assert that their constitutional right to a fair trial and their right to confront the witnesses and evidence against them mandates disclosure. Resolution of this pressing conflict requires a careful balancing of both the state's and defendant's interests on a case by case basis.

scholarly journals Some Ethical Landmarks Regarding the Settlement of the Civil Action by the Prosecutor

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-52
Author(s):  
Florin Octavian Barbu ◽  
◽  
Claudiu Gabriel Neacșu ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
Procedure Code

Article 20 para. 2 thesis 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that, in addition to specifying the nature and amount of the claims, the declaration of civil party must contain the applicable reasons and evidence. This provision must be regarded in conjunction with art. 20 para. 1 thesis I I of the Criminal Procedure Code, as regards the final moment until the party must fulfill the essential conditions iprovided by law, which are absolutely necessary for a valid legal claim. In addition, the obligations of the civil party regarding the conditions for filing the declaration of civil party must be cumulatively met. The need for the act of constitution as a civil party to indicate the evidence that the claim resides on results not only from the general form that a civil action must fulfill (as it is regulated in the civil procedure legislation, according to art. 194 letter e of the Civil Procedure Code], but also from the obligation stipulated by art. 99 para. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the sense that, in the civil action, the burden of proof falls on the civil party, unless the prosecutor exercises the civil action for the persons protected by art. 19 para. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which case the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor. The settlement of the civil action exercised in the criminal trials falls within the prerogative of the criminal court, which may admit it, dismiss it or leave the civil action unresolved.

From Charity to Right

Free Justice ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 57-85
Author(s):  
Sara Mayeux
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Public Defender ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
The Public ◽  
Indigent Defense ◽  
Private Charity ◽  
The 1950S ◽  
Constitutional Right

Using a case study of Massachusetts, this chapter traces a shift between the 1930s and the 1950s in how elite lawyers framed the problem of indigent defense—from a problem for private charity to a constitutional right requiring public support. By the 1930s, lawyers in several cities had established voluntary defender organizations as a private charitable alternative to the public defender. Meanwhile, a series of Supreme Court cases, interpreting the due process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, steadily expanded the constitutional right to counsel in criminal trials, culminating in the 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. Voluntary defenders typically had volatile funding, and lawyers increasingly worried that these private organizations lacked adequate resources to fulfill the expanding constitutional mandate to provide counsel for indigent defendants. By the 1950s, many lawyers worried that private charity was inadequate to satisfy a constitutional right, and increasingly viewed the public defender as preferable to the voluntary defender.

scholarly journals Objective and Subjective Comprehension of Jury Instructions in Criminal Trials

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blake M. McKimmie ◽  
Emma Antrobus ◽  
Chantelle Baguley
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Substantial Proportion ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Jury Instructions ◽  
Positive Evaluation

It would seem important that jury instructions are clear and comprehensible to jurors if they are to effectively carry out their responsibility in criminal trials. Research suggests, however, that jurors may not fully understand instructions despite reporting high levels of comprehension. The current study (N = 33) surveyed jurors who had recently served on a jury to assess their level of comprehension and the factors that contributed to their decisions. It was found that a substantial proportion of jurors were mistaken about directions relating to beyond reasonable doubt and burden of proof. It also was found that higher levels of self-reported comprehension were associated with self-reported reliance on additional factors to arrive at a decision, and a more positive evaluation of the prosecutions’ case. Overall, although jurors report that they understand directions, they do not appear to use those directions in arriving at a decision. Subjective comprehension appears to be an important factor in understanding the effect of directions on jurors.

The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 362-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Ambos
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The State ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
The Law

The Article examines the “transnational” use of torture evidence, i.e., the use of evidence obtained by torture by third states or parties in national criminal trials. The analysis of the law of the international criminal tribunals shows that supranational torture evidence must be excluded since such evidence is unreliable and damages the integrity of the proceedings. The same applies to the admission of transnational torture evidence before national tribunals. The strict exclusionary rule of Article 15 Convention Against Torture (CAT) confirms this view. The rationale for this rule is found in the general unreliability of torture evidence, its offensiveness to civilized values and its degrading effect on the administration of justice. The burden of proof must, as a rule, rest with the state as the party that presents the controversial evidence. For practical and fundamental considerations of fairness, such evidence should not be admitted if there is a real, serious risk that it was obtained by torture.

2. Burden and standard of proof: Presumptions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Statutory Provision ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Flow Charts ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Law Of Evidence

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and illustrative diagrams and flow charts. This chapter discusses the allocation of the burden of proof in civil and criminal trials, depending on who should bear the risk. In criminal trials the ‘presumption of innocence’ means that the burden is on the prosecution, unless reversed by express or implied statutory provision. The law of evidence safeguards what in some jurisdictions is a civil right backed by the constitution. It is important to understand the difference between the legal and evidential burden and the occasions where they are separately allocated. Tricky areas are where there is a divorce of the legal and evidential burden, primarily in situations where the prosecution cannot expect to put up evidence to anticipate every specific defence the accused may present.

2. Burden and standard of proof: presumptions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Statutory Provision ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Flow Charts ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Law Of Evidence

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and illustrative diagrams and flow charts. This chapter discusses the allocation of the burden of proof in civil and criminal trials, depending on who should bear the risk. In criminal trials the ‘presumption of innocence’ means that the burden is on the prosecution, unless reversed by express or implied statutory provision. The law of evidence safeguards what in some jurisdictions is a civil right backed by the constitution. It is important to understand the difference between the legal and evidential burden and the occasions where they are separately allocated. Tricky areas are where there is a divorce of the legal and evidential burden, primarily in situations where the prosecution cannot expect to put up evidence to anticipate every specific defence the accused may present.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document