Law Commons^™

Using Burdens Of Proof To Allocate The Risk Of Error When Assessing Developmental Maturity Of Youthful Offenders, David L. Faigman, Kelsey Geiser

William & Mary Law Review

Behavioral and neuroscientific research provides a relatively clear window into the timing of developmental maturity from adolescence to early adulthood. We know with considerable confidence that, on average, sixteen-year-olds are less developmentally mature than nineteen-year-olds, who are less developmentally mature than twenty-three-year-olds, who are less developmentally mature than twenty-six-year-olds. However, in the context of a given case, the question presented might be whether a particular seventeen-year-old defendant convicted of murder is “developmentally mature enough” that a sentence of life without parole can be constitutionally imposed on him or her. While developmental maturity can be accurately measured in group data, it …

Lifting The Veil Of Mona Lisa: A Multifaceted Investigation Of The "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" Standard, Zhuhao Wang, Eric Zhi

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

For a long period of time, the golden standard in judicial fact-finding of criminal cases in the United States and many other countries has been the “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” (BARD) standard – every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless, and until, his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The BARD standard’s undergirding principle is one of error distribution, where wrongful conviction of the innocent is a much greater wrong than failed conviction of the guilty. This concept was famously expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in 1760s: “It is better …

Amicus Curiae Observations By Public International Law & Policy Group, Milena Sterio, Michael P. Scharf, Paul R. Williams

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The amicus brief argues that in a case where the defendant alleges a ground excluding criminal responsibility (an affirmative defense), such as mental illness or duress, the defendant has an evidentiary burden to produce some evidence to support his/her claim of mental illness or duress, but that the prosecution retains the legal burden of proof to establish the defendant's responsibility beyond reasonable doubt.

“This ruling will have repercussions for future cases where the defendant asserts a mental illness or duress affirmative defense. Depending on how the ICC decides, future defendants will have to meet a specific evidentiary (or legal) burden …

(Un)Masking The Truth - The Cruel And Unusual Punishment Of Prisoners Amidst The Covid-19 Pandemic, Ariel Berkowitz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Issues Of Implementation Into The Legislation Of The Republic Of Uzbekistan Certain Provisions Of Article 53 Of The Un Convention Against Corruption, U Nigmadjanov

ProAcademy

This article addresses the issue of implementation to the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan certain provisions of Article 53 of the UN Convention against Corruption on criminal assets recovery in terms of permitting foreign state to initiate civil suits in the courts of the member states to establish ownership of property acquired through corruption offenses. The author analyzed the existing mechanism for filing civil claims for recognition of ownership of assets by foreign states in the courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan, as well as solving civil suit within criminal proceedings.

Shifting The Burden Of Proving Self-Defense - With Analysis Of Related Ohio Law, Randy R. Koenders

Akron Law Review

Senate Bill Number 42 was introduced into the Ohio General Assembly on February 1, 1977. The bill provides that while the burden of proof for all elements of the criminal offense with which an individual is charged rests upon the prosecution, the burden of proof for affirmative defenses rests upon the defendant, and he must prove his affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the bill raises serious questions concerning placing the burden of persuasion with respect to affirmative defenses generally, and self-defense in particular, on the defendant, a study of the law and policy involved in shifting …

Affirmative Defenses; Defendant's Burden Of Proof: Defense Of Extreme Emotional Disturbance; Due Process; Patteron V. New York, Lee Ann Johnson

Akron Law Review

The United States Supreme Court in Patterson v. New York upheld the constitutionality of a New York murder statute which places on the defendant the burden of proving extreme emotional disturbance. The Court thereby determined that New York courts in applying the statute against defendant Gordon Patterson had not violated his right to due process of law

Unreasonable Doubt: Warren Hill, Aedpa, And The Unconstitutionality Of Georgia's Reasonable Doubt Standard, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Georgia’s “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for determining intellectual disability has led to an absurd—and arbitrary—result. A Georgia state court held that defendant Warren Hill was intellectually disabled, yet still sentenced Hill to death. Seven experts—and the court—deemed Hill disabled under a preponderance of the evidence standard. He remains on death row, however, because Georgia’s “preposterous burden of proof” requires that intellectual disability be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard experts have said is nearly impossible to satisfy. It “effectively limits the constitutional right protected in Atkins,” and creates a conditional, not categorical, ban.

Punishment Without Culpability, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

For more than half a century, academic commentators have criticized the Supreme Court for failing to articulate a substantive constitutional conception of criminal law. Although the Court enforces various procedural protections that the Constitution provides for criminal defendants, it has left the question of what a crime is purely to the discretion of the legislature. This failure has permitted legislatures to evade the Constitution’s procedural protections by reclassifying crimes as civil causes of action, eliminating key elements (such as mens rea) or reclassifying them as defenses or sentencing factors, and authorizing severe punishments for crimes traditionally considered relatively minor. The …

New Explorations In Culture And Crime: Definitions, Theory, Method, Kenneth B. Nunn

Kenneth B. Nunn

Culture affects criminal law in at least two key ways. First, culture and crime symbiotically define each other. Second, culture helps explain which courtroom narratives will be successful, and which will not. Culture influences who will be arrested, charged, convicted, and what sentence they will receive. Indeed, the invisible hand of culture drives the process of criminalization and helps to determine which acts we will sanction through criminal statutes.

What Was He Thinking? Mens Rea’S Deterrent Effect On Machinegun Possession Under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (C), Stephanie Power

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Reasonable Doubt About "Reasonable Doubt", Miller W. Shealy Jr.

Oklahoma Law Review

The Supreme Court has failed to define the concept of “reasonable doubt” with any precision. The Court tolerates conflicting definitions of “reasonable doubt.” It permits some jurisdictions to forbid any definition of “reasonable doubt,” while giving others wide latitude to define the concept in ways that are contradictory. If the Court truly regards the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard to be an “ancient and honored aspect of our criminal justice system,”1 a “bedrock ‘axiomatic and elementary’ principle whose ‘enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law,’”2 then the Court cannot continue to tolerate the current …

Reconceptualizing The Burden Of Proof, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The preponderance standard is conventionally described as an absolute probability threshold of 0.5. This Essay argues that this absolute characterization of the burden of proof is wrong. Rather than focusing on an absolute threshold, the Essay reconceptualizes the preponderance standard as a probability ratio and shows how doing so eliminates many of the classical problems associated with probabilistic theories of evidence. Using probability ratios eliminates the so-called Conjunction Paradox, and developing the ratio tests under a Bayesian perspective further explains the Blue Bus problem and other puzzles surrounding statistical evidence. By harmonizing probabilistic theories of proof with recent critiques advocating …

Punishment Without Culpability, John F. Stinneford

UF Law Faculty Publications

For more than half a century, academic commentators have criticized the Supreme Court for failing to articulate a substantive constitutional conception of criminal law. Although the Court enforces various procedural protections that the Constitution provides for criminal defendants, it has left the question of what a crime is purely to the discretion of the legislature. This failure has permitted legislatures to evade the Constitution’s procedural protections by reclassifying crimes as civil causes of action, eliminating key elements (such as mens rea) or reclassifying them as defenses or sentencing factors, and authorizing severe punishments for crimes traditionally considered relatively minor.

The …

Patent Infringement As Criminal Conduct, Jacob S. Sherkow

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Criminal and civil law differ greatly in their use of the element of intent. The purposes of intent in each legal system are tailored to effectuate very different goals. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011), however, imported a criminal concept of intent--willful blindness--into the statute for patent infringement, a civil offense. This importation of a criminal law concept of intent into the patent statute is novel and calls for examination. This Article compares the purposes behind intent in criminal law with the purposes behind intent in patent law to …

Negligence-Based Environmental Crimes: Failing To Exercise Due Care Can Be Criminal, Joseph J. Lisa

Villanova Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

New Explorations In Culture And Crime: Definitions, Theory, Method, Kenneth B. Nunn

UF Law Faculty Publications

Culture affects criminal law in at least two key ways. First, culture and crime symbiotically define each other. Second, culture helps explain which courtroom narratives will be successful, and which will not. Culture influences who will be arrested, charged, convicted, and what sentence they will receive. Indeed, the invisible hand of culture drives the process of criminalization and helps to determine which acts we will sanction through criminal statutes.

Rates Of Reversible Error And The Risk Of Wrongful Execution, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Innocent fatalities are a concern of all social activity with a capacity to kill. This is especially true when the social activity is the death penalty since an innocent person's execution is not simply a tragic collateral consequence of activity with a non-fatal objective. Instead, the taking of life is the goal of the enterprise, and the killing is the intended act of the state.

There is another difference between accidental fatalities in other social activities and those that occur when the capital system miscarries. Typically, the former fatalities are easy to spot and quantify; the latter are not. Precisely …

Convicting The Innocent Beyond A Reasonable Doubt: Some Lessons About Jury Instructions From The Sheppard Case, Lawrence M. Solan

Cleveland State Law Review

Indeed, it is difficult to prove one's innocence, and the legal system purports not to require defendants in criminal cases to do so. The shift in the burden of proof happened for a number of reasons. In this article, I will discuss another factor that I believe pervades the criminal justice system: jury instructions that shift the burden from the government to the defendant. Part II of this article establishes three criteria for good criminal jury instructions. They are fidelity to the law, comprehensibility, and consistency with the presumption of innocence. It then discusses the presumption of innocence, burden of …

"Ready? Induce. Sting!": Arguing For The Government's Burden Of Proving Readiness In Entrapment Cases, David D. Tawil

Michigan Law Review

For over 100 years the United States judiciary has struggled with the sting and the entrapment defense, examining whether government agents deviously manufacture crimes or merely afford criminals the opportunity to commit them. The sentiments of Justice Holmes were rare for his time, but today they are reflected in a growing sympathy for sting victims. While courts are now more willing than ever to find entrapment, they still differ over the burden of proof that the government must satisfy to overthrow an entrapment defense. Specifically, courts disagree about whether the burden includes proof that the defendant had the ability and …

Formal Legal Truth And Substantive Truth In Judicial Fact-Finding – Their Justified Divergence In Some Particular Cases, Robert S. Summers

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Truth is a fundamental objective of adjudicative processes; ideally, ‘substantive’ as distinct from ‘formal legal’ truth. But problems of evidence, for example, may frustrate finding of substantive truth; other values may lead to exclusions of probative evidence, e.g., for the sake of fairness. ‘Jury nullification’ and ‘jury equity’. Limits of time, and definitiveness of decision, require allocation of burden of proof. Degree of truth-formality is variable within a system and across systems.

Presumptions And Burdens Of Proof In Determining Competency To Stand Trial: An Analysis Of Medina V. California And The Supreme Court's New Due Process Methodology In Criminal Cases, Bruce J. Winick

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confrontation Clause

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Reasonable Doubt Rule And The Meaning Of Innocence, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Unmet Challenge Of Criminal Theory, George P. Fletcher

Faculty Scholarship

The last several decades have witnessed an outpouring of serious articles bringing to bear the methods of analytic philosophy to the issues of substantive criminal law. J. L. Austin, a philosopher and not a lawyer, may have been the first to demonstrate the potential of probing legal concepts such as mistake and accident, justification and excuse, for their philosophical potential. H.L.A. Hart carried forward the literature with several path breaking essays on criminal law. It is only in the last few years, however, that we have encountered an explosion of interest in the basic questions of criminal law. As the …

The Burden Of Proof In Criminal Cases: A Comment On The Mullaney-Patterson Doctrine, Fernand N. Dutile

Journal Articles

The United States Supreme Court's recent ventures into the constitutional requirements concerning the burden of proof in criminal cases justify consideration of their prescriptions, of their consistency and of the constitutional limits of burden-shifting.

Mullaney and Patterson mark not the end of the inquiry but rather its beginning. Although they undoubtedly resolve, whether well or badly, a large number of burden of proof situations, those resolved may be the easier and the more obvious, not the more difficult and the more subtle. In any event, however, these two landmark cases will at least have alerted us to the complex problems …

A Look At Florida's Proposed Code Of Evidence, Charles W. Ehrhardt

Scholarly Publications

The law of evidence had been codified in three states, California, New Jersey and Kansas, prior to the United States Supreme Court's promulgation of the Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence. The submission of the rules to the Congress, and their approval, as amended, by the House of Representatives served as the catalyst for renewed interest in evidence codification. Three states have recently adopted comprehensive Rules of Evidence that closely parallel the Proposed Federal Rules, and at least four other states, including Florida, have drafted or are actively considering the adoption of such a codification. During the 1974 session of the …

The Law Of Presumptions: A Look At Confusion, Kentucky Style, Robert G. Lawson

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Over the years the term “presumption” has been used by virtually all courts to “designate what are more accurately termed inferences or substantive rules of law.” It has also been used as a “loose synonym for presumption of fact, presumption of law, rebuttable presumption, and irrebuttable presumption.” To this list the Kentucky Court of Appeals had added mandatory presumption, presumptive evidence, and prima facie case. Perhaps of more significance than the indiscriminate use of terminology is the extent to which courts have used “presumptions” to describe judicial reasoning of various kinds and to perform chores more appropriate to unrelated procedural …

Burden Of Proof As To Perpetrators Of Crimes

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence--Burden Of Proof--Presumption Of Innocence, Esdel Beane Yost

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.