The law makes the middle ground—the ground we do not know—a buffer. And because of that, it is a terrible mistake to send the signal that you actually think your client is guilty. Suppose that you take a mouse and put him in a box. Here are two cases. If you can choose between the two just on what they said, you either have an unusual gift or you are prone to jumping to conclusions.
He knew they made sense, but he worried that they might actually be hurting the case instead of helping it. So if the jury is listening carefully to see if you will give some sign of what you secretly know, the argument that the case is not proven may sound like you are admitting the possibility of guilt and hiding behind the technicality.
The young lawyer was right to be concerned. The only difference is in how the accused responds.
There is no mouse, but there is one happy cat. Take a simple example. It gives the defendant the benefit of the doubt. It is designed to protect the defendant, to guard against the possibility of the innocent being convicted. There is a hole, just big enough for a mouse.
But telling the jury to give the defendant that benefit of the doubt implies that he needs its protection—and suggests he might well be guilty. Yours has a broken lace.
Everything had been going along just fine when all of a sudden he felt the rush of blood to his face and became exquisitely aware that he was standing in front of the jury, talking to them, and that they were listening to what he had to say. Put the cat in the box with the mouse.
How can it be a trap for the defense? Jurors also are suspicious of lawyers; they feel that what we say and do does not represent all that we know about the case. Leave the room for half an hour.
Go to a school yard and see if you can take sides in an argument just on the basis of what two young boys are saying to each other. It was used by the late Peter M. That is when he started listening to his own words. Come back into the room. To see how this works, step outside the law for just a minute.
You can look at it, you can circle it, you can describe it, you can crawl all over the outside of it. Put the mouse in the box.
You can take my word for it: Then take the lid and cover the box. Now take a cat and put him in the box with the mouse. It also suggests that you ought to be careful in how you present your argument on reasonable doubt.
Does that mean you should not argue reasonable doubt when you are for the defense? You cannot simply tell the jury not to take your argument the wrong way. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt recognizes three different conclusions:Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Essay Words | 5 Pages As surely as the possibility of God’s existence is self-evident to mankind, so it seems is the possibility of His non-existence.
Beyond reasonable doubt, however, does not mean that those who have assessed the evidence at hand should be absolutely certain of the guilt of the accused as this would create a bizarre and inconvenient situation by leaving out circumstantial evidence completely.
Presumption of Innocence Burden of Proof (in cases without an affirmative defense) burden of proof, and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.1 Throughout these proceedings, the defendant is presumed to be in noc ent. 2 As a result, you must find the defendant not guilty. Order instructions Give abrief explanation of the burden of proof, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution.
Give a brief explanationof prima facie. Give a brief explanationof the applicable code the prosecution was brought under. Give a brief explanation of why the Simpson trial was so pivotal to the prosecution of crimes in the United. Ross Essay Contest; When a Standard Designed to Protect Defendants Actually Hurts Them.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a heavy burden that the prosecution has to bear throughout the. This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. Criminal or civil standard of proof.Download