Filters
Question type
Study Flashcards

In jury trials, the degree of proof referred to as beyond a reasonable doubt:


A) is the degree required in both criminal and civil cases.
B) is a rule of evidence but has not been made applicable to the states by the due process clause.
C) does not have to be explained by the trial judge in a jury instruction in every criminal case.
D) must, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, always be defined when the charge is made to the jury.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

In the case of Martin v. Ohio, the defendant was tried in state court for aggravated murder. At the trial, the defendant admitted that she had killed her husband but claimed that she acted in self-defense. After the evidence was presented, the court instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving the "affirmative defense" of self-defense. The United States Supreme Court held that:


A) it is not unconstitutional to require the defendant to prove the affirmative defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
B) it was not a violation of the due process clause to place the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant.
C) as the majority of the states now assume the burden of disproving affirmative defenses, requiring the defendant to prove self-defense violated the Constitution.
D) the Ohio law placing the burden on the defendant to prove that she was acting in self-defense in effect relieves the prosecution of proving one element of the crime and is therefore unconstitutional.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

B

Although the case dealt with the burden of proof in a juvenile case where the act charged would have been a crime if committed by an adult, the case of In re Winship held that in either an adult or juvenile case in which the act would have been a crime if committed by the adult, the Constitution of United States and historical practice dictated that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable time was a constitutional requirement. How did to the Court arrive at this conclusion? Explain.

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

Answered by ExamLex AI

In the case of In re Winship, the Suprem...

View Answer

What is the rationale for requiring the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, and not requiring this in a civil case?

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

Answered by ExamLex AI

The standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases is the highest standard of proof used in the legal system. This standard is required in criminal cases for several key reasons: 1. Protection of Individual Liberty: Criminal convictions can result in severe consequences, including loss of liberty (incarceration), loss of rights (such as voting or owning firearms), significant fines, or even the death penalty in some jurisdictions. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is designed to protect individuals from wrongful convictions and the severe consequences that follow. 2. Presumption of Innocence: In criminal law, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This presumption places the burden of proof on the prosecution, which must demonstrate the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This high standard ensures that no individual is punished without compelling evidence of their guilt. 3. Moral Certainty: The standard reflects a level of moral certainty that society demands before punishing someone as a criminal. It is intended to create a high level of confidence in the minds of the jurors that the accused is indeed guilty as charged. 4. Erring on the Side of Caution: Given the irreversible nature of some criminal penalties, the legal system prefers to err on the side of caution. It is deemed more acceptable to let a potentially guilty person go free than to convict an innocent person. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard minimizes the risk of wrongful convictions. In contrast, civil cases involve disputes between private parties over rights and obligations, and the consequences are typically monetary damages or specific performance rather than criminal penalties. The stakes, while still significant, are generally considered lower than in criminal cases. Therefore, the standards of proof are lower. The most common standard in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence," which means that it is more likely than not that the claim is true. In some civil cases, an intermediate standard of "clear and convincing evidence" is used, which is higher than preponderance but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. The rationale for these lower standards in civil cases is that the balance of harm is different. The risk of error is weighed against the need to resolve civil disputes efficiently and fairly. Since the consequences are less severe than in criminal cases, a lower standard of proof is considered appropriate to facilitate justice and the resolution of disputes.

In federal courts when a defendant pleads insanity:


A) the burden of introducing evidence to prove insanity rests with the defendant.
B) to prevail in the case, the defendant must meet the affirmative burden of clear and convincing evidence.
C) the prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt in order to win the case.
D) answers a and b both state correct responses.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

In 1984, as a part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, Congress enacted legislation titled "Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984." Under this Act:


A) insanity is no longer a defense in a federal case.
B) the defendant has the burden of alleging and proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
C) the defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
D) the government must prove sanity after the defendant has introduced expert testimony indicating that the defendant is mentally incompetent.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

B

If the defendant in a criminal case relies upon a true affirmative defense that his or her acts come within one of the exceptions in the statute creating the offense:


A) it is incumbent upon the prosecution to show that the exception does not apply to the defendant.
B) it is incumbent upon the defendant to show that his conduct and mental state were appropriate to meet the elements of that defense.
C) the burden of proving "not guilty" has been unconstitutionally shifted to the defendant.
D) the burden is on the prosecution to show guilt of all the elements of the crime, but then only by a preponderance of the evidence.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

In regard to the mental element (insanity) that may be at issue in a criminal case:


A) requiring the defendant to prove the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence does not violate due process.
B) there is a presumption that the defendant is not sane and the prosecution must prove sanity before introducing any other evidence.
C) all the defendant has to do is claim insanity, thereby placing the responsibility on the prosecution to prove sanity.
D) all courts agree that insanity is an affirmative defense that must be shown by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Explain the difference between clear and convincing evidence and a preponderance of the evidence. In what kind of case might the clear and convincing evidence standard be used?

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

Answered by ExamLex AI

The difference between clear and convinc...

View Answer

If a defendant makes a threshold showing of proof for an affirmative defense, should the judge offer a jury instruction covering that affirmative defense?

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

Answered by ExamLex AI

In the United States legal system, if a ...

View Answer

Some civil cases call for a higher standard of proof than is usually the case for the average civil matter, and the degree of proof must be such as will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established. This standard is known as:


A) clear and convincing evidence.
B) a preponderance of the evidence.
C) beyond a reasonable doubt.
D) clear and unequivocal.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

In State v. Eichelberger, the defendant was tried in Washington for trafficking in stolen property. He claimed that the evidence against him was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction for trafficking in stolen property because there was no evidence that he knew the compact discs he found were stolen. The Washington Court of Appeals held that:


A) mere proof that a defendant sold stolen property that was in his possession did not indicate that he knew or should have known the property was stolen.
B) the jury was entitled to find that Eichelberger had subjective knowledge of and disregarded the substantial risk that a wrongful act would occur when he sold the CDs to the pawn shop.
C) under the circumstances, no reasonable trier of fact could have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the property Eichelberger found was in fact stolen and that he knew it.
D) the proof was based upon circumstantial evidence alone, and that type of evidence, by itself, cannot reach proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

In a criminal case, the prosecution:


A) must prove the defendant guilty by a preponderance of the evidence.
B) need not prove each element of the crime but only the general guilt of the accused.
C) must prove the guilt of the accused by clear and convincing evidence.
D) must compile enough evidence to convince the jury or the judge that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

In a criminal case, the burden of proving guilt never shifts from the prosecution in a criminal case. Does this mean that the accused is not responsible for proving any claim? Explain.

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

Answered by ExamLex AI

In a criminal case, the legal principle ...

View Answer

In legal theory, to convict a person of the crime charged, each of the elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, in a murder case, the essential elements are:

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

Answered by ExamLex AI

In legal theory, to convict a person of ...

View Answer

If the defendant in a criminal case pleads self-defense, what burden rests with the defense?

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

Answered by ExamLex AI

When a defendant in a criminal case plea...

View Answer

The term burden of proof in a criminal case means:


A) the duty of establishing the truth of a given proposition or issue.
B) the party has a requirement to introduce more witnesses than the other party.
C) the same as the burden of going forward with the evidence.
D) the burden to prove that the defendant is not guilty rests with the prosecution until it shifts to the defense.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

In the Virginia case, Lindsey v. Commonwealth, store employees observed that the defendant concealed two items of merchandise under his clothing. The defendant was brought to trial for petty larceny and was convicted. While the prosecution has the burden of proof in a criminal case, the trial judge indicated that the jury could infer that willful concealment of goods or merchandise while still on the premises of a store was evidence of an intent to convert and defraud the owner of the value of the goods or merchandise. Defendant Lindsey contended that the jury instruction amounted to a mandatory but rebuttable presumption that the defendant intended to defraud the owner of the property unless the defendant were able to convince him otherwise. The prosecution contended that the jury instruction was merely the use of an inference that the jury could adopt or refuse to adopt and therefore the jury instruction did not reverse the burden of proof and place it on the defendant. How did the reviewing court rule? What was the reviewing court's essential rationale?

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

Answered by ExamLex AI

The reviewing court ruled in favor of th...

View Answer

Throughout the trial, the prosecution has the obligation to convince the jury of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


A) In so doing, circumstantial evidence is not admissible.
B) This means that each element of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
C) However, the burden of proving a defendant's innocence may shift to the defendant if the prosecution has successfully presented its case.
D) However, the failure of the accused to substantiate his or her defense relieves the prosecution of this burden of proof.

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

In some instances, the defendant has the burden of proving affirmative defenses. Does this violate due process?

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

Answered by ExamLex AI

The concept of due process is rooted in ...

View Answer

Showing 1 - 20 of 43

Related Exams

Exam 1

The Study of Evidence: History, Development, and Approach

32 Questions

Exam 3

Proof Via Evidence

53 Questions

Exam 4

Substitutes for Admission of Evidence

51 Questions

Exam 5

Relevancy and Materiality

37 Questions

Exam 6

Competency of Evidence and Witnesses

36 Questions

Exam 7

Examination of Witnesses

50 Questions

Exam 8

Privileges

40 Questions

Exam 9

Opinions and Expert Testimony

41 Questions

Exam 10

Hearsay Rule and Exceptions

43 Questions

Exam 11

Documentary Evidence

38 Questions

Exam 12

Real Evidence

42 Questions

Exam 13

Results of Examinations and Tests

36 Questions

Exam 14

Evidence Unconstitutionally Obtained

66 Questions

Show Answer