34

Everyone goes free. Each individual in the room is considered innocent until proven guilty. If the prosecution cannot prove that Bob was guilty of the murder then Bob is considered innocent. The same goes for each of the other 19. However if all 20 people were part of some other crime which led to the death of Jake then they might be found guilty under ...


26

The police don't need to determine who specifically killed Jake, only who participated in the crime. If Bob and his six friends work together to kill Jake, then all seven of them are guilty of murder, even it was only Bob who actually killed Jake. For example, if two of Bob's friends hold Jake so he can't move, and the other four of Bob's friends distract ...


18

I'm curious as to how the US legal system determines who should present evidence and how much evidence is required by them to prove one side of an argument against a counterargument. In General In both criminal and civil cases in common law legal systems (legal systems derived from the English legal system, basically, the U.S., U.K., Ireland, Canada, ...


11

Crimes go unsolved all the time There are all sorts of points of failure between a crime being committed and the perpetrator being punished. The crime must be brought to the attention of law enforcement. Crimes that are never reported are never solved. Law enforcement must make a judgment call that a crime has or might have been committed. Many reports of "...


9

Trials in German criminal cases are generally open to the public (subject to exceptions similar to those in the U.S.) and there is a presumption of innocence until proof beyond a reasonable doubt establishes otherwise in its criminal justice system. The authority for this and the history of this are explored below. In a criminal case in Germany, according ...


8

Under US law, the prosecution has the obligation to prove all of the elements of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the exact explanation in the jury instructions varies from state to state, in aid of avoiding the inference that the defense has an obligation to create a doubt). The prosecution may have the advantage that the camera evidence has already ...


5

The case of Sanchez v. Kerry provides evidence as to what standard of proof is required in an analogous case. Petitioner sued the Dept. of State, which makes citizenship determinations (22 CFR 50.2), alleging that he was born in Brownsville TX and submitting a birth certificate in support of the claim. The court found that the Texas certificate was not valid ...


5

The standard of proof required to survive a motion to dismiss is very low. The factual (not legal) assertions of the plaintiff are assumed to be true, and the case is dismissed if the defense shows that even when the plaintiff is given that benefit, the assumed facts don't establish the case. This standard is somtimes referred to as "sufficiency of the ...


5

From a US perspective, in a word, "no". Firstly, "presumption of innocence" is in a trial, not in police interactions. Being arrested does not violate the presumption of innocence. Police do not need any reason to interact with you or ask you questions. Police can arrest you if they have probable cause to suspect you have committed a crime, but this is not ...


4

All torts have to be proved. In 99.99% of cases the proof is by admission of the tortfeaser. That is, they agree to pay damages with or without admission of liability. Where liability is contested, there are never any “slam dunks”. There are strong cases, even very strong cases, but when someone else is deciding the case, there are no certainties. ...


4

You must be careful with the term Code Napoleon. In general it is an alternative name for the code civil (original name code civil des Français 1804) and is one of the 5 books of law. It was introduced in Westphalia in 1808 and used in french domenated areas until it was replaced by the Bürgerlichgesetzbuch in 1901. What you are talking about (I assume) ...


4

For the record, the requirement says: The board of education or trustees of the school district or the state agency responsible for providing education to students with disabilities shall have the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion and burden of production, in any such impartial hearing, except that a parent or person in parental ...


4

They have the same standard of proof but different onus The legal system places the onus of proving an allegation on the person making the allegation. For your example, this is A if they are suing B or the government prosecutor if B is being prosecuted. The standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt” if B is defending a criminal prosecution and “balance ...


4

Truth is a defense to defamation Bob must prove the truth of his statement if Rob sues - there is a reverse onus for this defense. Because this is a civil trial the burden is balance of probabilities. Provided Bob can prove Rob stole his bike he will win. A conviction for doing so is pretty good (but not necessarily conclusive) evidence. Absent that, Bob ...


3

The burden of proof and standard of proof is different in the different legal situations you mentioned. If the person is seeking to apply for a US passport, the person has the burden or proving that they are a US citizen (or non-citizen US national). Gerard Ashton's answer stated that the standard of evidence is "preponderance of evidence". But not being ...


3

James Whitman argues that they are the result of historical developments in the late 18th century which are now applied to a role for which they were not intended. His thesis is that the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard was originally constructed to protect jurors, not the accused. Specifically, it was protect Christian jurors from eternal damnation for ...


3

Because in a civil case you have two equally involved sides. If I claim you damaged my car which cost $10,000 to repair, it's not only that you lose $10,000 if you lose the case, but I lose $10,000 if you win the case. Therefore the burden of proof should be equal in both directions. Assume a kid at an expensive boarding school is accused of causing $10,...


3

Your daughter says of your son: "He hit me." She has made an allegation. Assume that the evidence shows that there is a red mark on her arm, tears and she and her brother were the only two people in the room at the time. This evidence is enough to establish a prima facie case. However, this evidence has not yet been tested. Now, for obvious reasons, we ...


3

Generally they don't. If the conversation was made while there was a third person present, the person can be a witness at trial. Unless the witness is impeached, the witness's statement may be sufficient for you to meet your burden of proof to show the statement was made, because the burden is just a preponderance of evidence in most civil cases. Note that, ...


3

No. Not just no, butt hell NO. Telcos are not allowed to record calls unless they have a court order to so. I. e. what you seek is impossible unless either of you is suspected of a listed offense (Katalogstraftat) and police obtained a court order to intercept that person's phone for that reason. Even in that case, the phone company in question would not ...


3

Re: Any jurisdiction... In England and Wales, this falls within the Defamation Act 2013. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents The burden is on Rob to show - on the balance of probabilities - that Bob's statements on the billboards have caused "serious harm" to his reputation. s.1(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its ...


3

The courts are never in such a broad position to rule on generic wikileaks evidence. Theoretically, a court could have to rule on the admissibility of a specific document, so in that sense the matter is always dealt with on a case by case basis. There is a "document" that purports to be somehow from Amazon, reporting that a certain grey building ...


2

Beyond Reasonable Doubt In Australia, the High Court has decided in Green v R: A reasonable doubt is a doubt which the particular jury entertain in the circumstances. Jurymen themselves set the standard of what is reasonable in the circumstances. And they further said that judges should: adhere to and not to attempt needless explanations of the classical ...


2

In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of the trier of fact (jury, or judge if a jury has been waived). How much proof is required to do this is pretty much up to the trier of fact. If in your hypothetical buss case, the prosecutor presented the image and said that this ...


2

The standard in civil trials is "on the balance of probabilities" or "more likely than not." This is often expressed as "more than 50% likely", but this question is meant to provide an edge case to this standard of proof. Despite one person being provably innocent, could all 3 people be found civilly liable for 1/3 of the damages, since each ...


2

Short Answer Are there some torts for which the proof is “slam dunk” or close to? Some torts are easier to prove than others, and in certain circumstances the law relieves the victim of the duty to prove negligence, i.e. that the defendant failed to take the actions to prevent harms to third-parties that a reasonable person would have, on a case by case ...


2

The Orderud Killings While this happened in Norway, I will relate it nonetheless, as the question does not specify a jurisdiction. To make a very long story short, the wife of a prominent diplomat, Anne Orderud Paust (herself occupying an important position in the Ministry of Defence), and her parents were killed on their farm in Sørumsand. Four people ...


2

Phone companies don’t record phone calls The do keep metadata about who called whom and how long the calls were for billing purposes and, in some jurisdictions, because the law requires it for law enforcement. You can subpoena that. You usually have to pay the phone company’s reasonable costs in complying with the subpoena.


1

I will answer for Russia. A case cannot be closed with acquittal in Russia. Theoretically yes, but in practice, no. In this particular case the things will go straightforward. They will write down the witness accounts of those 20 people, make cross-questionnaire, make reenactions etc. This would be enough for the court. But what happens in cases where ...


1

It's difficult to prove a negative. In this instance, one of two things is true: The letter in question really was sent by the landlord, and so the tenants are telling the truth. The letter was faked by the tenants, and so the landlord is telling the truth. For #2, presumably the landlord must then have proof that he notified the tenants of a valid contact ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible