0
What else can I help you with?
What must the prosecution prove to secure a guilty verdict in a criminal trial?
In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime they are accused of. This includes presenting evidence and convincing the jury or judge that the defendant is guilty.
What is the only direct evidence of a defendant's mens rea?
The fact that he committed it (Actus Rea).
If a defendant refuses to testify at trial what can the prosecution tell the jury?
Your question is unclear. In the USA, a defendant does NOT HAVE TO testify at his trial, ever. The defendant is the one accused of committing the crime. He does not have to say anything (OJ Simpson did NOT testify in his first trial, Scott Peterson did NOT testify at his trial.) The Prosecutor will present his case (with all his evidence and witnesses) explaining to the jury (or judge) WHY the evidence shows the defendant committed the crime. The Defense Attorney will present his case (with all his evidence and witnesses) explaining to the jury (or judge) WHY the evidence does NOT show the defendant committed the crime. The defendant does not have to be one of those witnesses. He cannot be forced to testify.
How convincing is the evidence to suggest that the government was responsible for the September 11 attacks?
There is no convincing evidence.
The definition of indicted?
It is the grand jury's determination that there is enough evidence that the defendant committed the crime to justify having a trial
A prosecution lawyer wants to show evidence that the defendant was at the scene of the crime when the crime was committed. Which will the lawyer use?
logos
A prosecution lawyer wants to show evidence that the defendant was at the scene of the crime when the crime was committed which will the lawyer use?
logos
Is character assassination legal?
The Defendant's character in and of itself is not on trial during a criminal proceeding. Whether or not the defendant is kind of a jerk or known for being dishonest is not evidence that he committed the crime at question, and is generally inadmissible. However, the defendant may open the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of his bad character. For example, if the defendant is charged with embezzling funds, and the defendant introduces character evidence to show that he is a generally honest person, the prosecution may then rebut that evidence by introducing evidence that the defendant is a liar.
What does beyond reasonable doubt mean?
The clause beyond reasonable doubt simply means that there is enough evidence to convince the judge that you have committed the act or in other word, the crime.That is the standard which must be met for conviction of a defendant in a criminal trial. Notice that the standard is not, "beyond ALL doubt," - only beyond REASONABLE doubt.REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean beyond ALL doubt.See below link:
What is the difference between the prosecution and counsel for the defence?
The difference between the prosecution and counsel for defence is that the prosecution is the body that is representing the plaintiff who tries to convice the judge/magistrate that the defendant has committed crime while the counsel for defence is the body that is representing the defendant who tries to convince the judge/magistrate that the defendant has not committed any crime.
A sentence with the word convincing?
It can be. It is a participle form that can modify a noun such as story. The word convincing can also be a gerund (a noun).
How can a court find a person guilty when they have no proof?
It will obvioulsy be the contention of the defendant that no one had any "proof" that they did it, but if they were, nonetheless, found guilty the proseuction MUST have presented enough evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the offense.
