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, ...


8

The phrase "reasonable doubt" was formed hundreds of years ago, and does not hold any mathematical or probabilistic meaning. It is for each individual juror to decide for themselves what constitutes "reasonable doubt", and whether the evidence presented to them has crossed that threshold. EDIT for extra clarity: As stated above, the definition of "...


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 ...


7

united-states Procedures differ on such things. The closest I know of to an outcome of "not enough evidence" is the classic "scotch verdict" of "Not Proven. In the US, the prosecutor can wait to proceed with a criminal case while s/he does (or has done) as much investigation as s/he thinks is advisable. But once the trial starts, it normally proceeds to a ...


6

Overview This would not be uniform for all courts, even in a single state, nor would it be the same for all kinds of evidence. Also, few rules regarding the timing of disclosure of evidence are absolute. A judge's handling of a request to introduce late disclosed evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo, on appeal, so a judge is afforded ...


6

Yes and no. Using deception to get someone to open the door so that you can execute a warrant is okay (United States v. Contreras-Ceballos, 999 F.2d 432). Leading a criminal to believe that you are a crime-customer (e.g. for purposes of a drug sale) and not a police officer is okay (Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206), but must be limited to the purposes ...


5

In US law, there was, as far as the question indicates, no probable cause to search her phone at all, Therefore (unless there is some cause not mentioned in the question), any such search is illegal, and any evidence found in such a search, or that is found as an indirect result of such a search (pointers toward it are found in the search, and followed) ...


5

There are all manner of reasons that evidence can be excluded at a trial, most of which are set forth in rules of evidence. If the evidence was not admitted on the grounds of relevance and the charge was speeding, I presume that the reason that it was found not be to relevant was that it was not possible from a video to determine how fast someone was ...


3

In the US the jury is the fact-finder, while the judge is responsible for decisions purely related to the law. The defendant cannot be convicted unless the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Presumably the OP's probability P(A) is the probability the defendant is guilty given all information available to some ill-...


2

Yes, DNA found on drugs could be used as evidence in court, although, by itself, it might not be sufficient to support a conviction. Generally speaking, otherwise duly authenticated physical evidence is admissible when it is "relevant" and it is is "relevant" when it makes it more likely that an element of the crime (in this case, possession) is true than ...


2

Another key point to consider is when the new evidence of innocence becomes available. As a general rule, a conviction can only be set aside if new evidence of innocence was not available to present at the original trial resulting in a conviction. Suppose that Mr. Anderson is convicted of murder after a fair trial which Mr. Anderson defended primarily on ...


2

There is much variation between states, but a wrongful incarceration could be compensated. In almost half of the states there is no compensation. In Ohio for example, if you were charged and did not plead guilty (no plea bargaining!), and the conviction was vacated, dismissed, or reversed and the offense was "not committed by the individual or was not ...


2

Physical evidence must be authenticated to be admissible as evidence in court. In other words, the person seeking to introduce it as evidence must show that it is what it claims to be by some means (there are many legitimate ways to authenticate evidence). A chain of custody is used to authenticate physical evidence. Even if physical evidence can be ...


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

Subdivision A of California Penal Code 632 protects confidential communication: (a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication... Subdivision C defines confidential communication and excludes: ...any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the ...


2

There is no distinction between exploratory and confirmatory analysis in law. Assume that Alice is suspected of being a child pornographer (based on clear statements to that effect by multiple parties) and a warrant is issued to allow exhaustively searching her cell phone (the search has to be legal in the first place). The cellphone contains damning ...


2

The court doesn't matter The location of the court that will hear the matter is irrelevant. What matters is the applicable law. Since the matter was transferred to Florida, I assume that Florida law is applicable. Was the recording unlawful? What matters is where the parties were when the recording was made. If you recorded a person in Florida without ...


1

This isn’t hearsay Thornhill is testifying as to what Drucker said to them. It’s only hearsay if the testimony is trying to show that Drucker’s statements were factual. There is actually nothing in Drucker’s statements that speak to other facts, all Thornhill is saying is that Drucker told them these things. Thornhill can then by cross-examined on that. ...


1

I was wrong. Now that we know the facts, this is a very simple case. Because the call was interstate (from NJ to Fla), federal law applies. Since federal law allows recording with one-party consent, the recording is legal, and cannot be excluded by a Florida court because it is "the fruit of the poison tree." It might help to think about it this way: ...


1

This standard of proof means that, if we accuse someone of a crime ("Jimmy Jones Stole the Cookies From the Cookie Jar") and that person denies the claim (Mr. Jones says "Not me, Couldn't be!") that there are two stories that are in conflict, one must be true. Once I make the charge and present my evidence, I must show that my accusation is true. Jones on ...


1

The jury is supposed to base their decision on whether the evidence presented at trial has convinced them, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty. The mere fact that the defendant is being prosecuted (B) is not, in itself, evidence of guilt (A), and the jury is not supposed to consider it as such.


1

Those things can all be characterized as evidence, but in the United States, they are generally going to be objectionable. Federal Rule of Evidence 404 governs the use of character evidence, past crimes, and other acts. It generally prohibits the use of character evidence to demonstrate that a person acted in accordance with that character, and it generally ...


1

To get a warrant, there must be an affidavit. Here is an example of such affidavits, also here, and here. Some general guidance on preparation of the affidavit is here, which says you must "Swear to the contents of the affidavit and sign it before the judge/magistrate" (as we observe in the examples). If a part of the statement for the arrest warrant is ...


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