This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.

Evidence: Chapter 3


undefined, object
copy deck
Burden of Production
obligation placed on one side in a trial to produce evidence-to make a prima facie showing on a particular issue; in criminal case, prosecution has this burden- a criminal defendant cannot be found guilty unless the prosecution introduces evidence to show that hte defendant committed the crime-defense does not have to introduce evidence that he is innocent; failure by prosecution to produce evidence results in directed verdict
Prima Facie
part of Burden of Production; having enough evidence to justify submission of the matter to the jury if unchallenged by the other side;
Directed Verdict
part of Burden of Production; failure for prosecution to introduce evidence of each element of the crime charged results in this for the defendant, without any requirement that the defendant introduce evidence or call any witnesses
Burden of Persuasion
placed on the party to convince the jury with regard to a particular issue; referred to as burden of proof; requires prosecution to provide evidence sufficient to justify a conviction
Proof by a Preponderance of the Evidence
part of burden of persuasion; in civil matters what burden of proof is referred as; facts asserted are more probable true than false; easy to meet; 51% rule
Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
part of burden of persuasion; burden of proof in a criminal trial; facts asserted are highly probable; very difficult to meet; 84-86% rule
Proof by Clear and Convincing Evidence
part of burden of persuasion; used in some civil and criminal matters; facts asserted are quite likely true; between the other two proofs; 70-75% rule
The Reasonable Doubt Standard
part of burden of persuasion; derived from common law; held by due process clause of Constitution-5th and 14th Amendments; roots as far back as 12th century; "moral certainty" meant "reasonable doubt;" multiple definitions-most popular "a doubt that would cause one to hesitate to act" (Leland v. Oregon, 1952)
Affirmative Defense*****
part of burden of persuasion; alibi, self-defense, or insanity; must introduce evidence to support that defense; burden of production may switch to the defense; insanity is now proven by "clear and convincing evidence" proof
Exclusionary Rule
judicially created remedy for violations of the fourth Amendment; provides that evidence obtained by law enforcement officers in violation of the fourth amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is not admissable in a criminal trial to prove guilt (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961); deters police misconduct; LOOK IN BOOK
Silver Platter Doctrine
part of Exclusionary Rule; evidence seized illegally by state police could be turned over to federal law enforcement officers for use in federal prosecutions because federal law enforcement officers were not directly involved in the illegal seizure; this ended in 1960 with Elkins v. U.S.; LOOK IN BOOK
Good Faith Exception
part of Exclusionary Rule; evidence obtained by the police acting in good faith with reliance on a search warrant ultimately found invalid may nonetheless be admitted in trial (Massachussetts v. Shepard and U.S. v. Leon, 1984); applies only to situations in which police relied on others who made a mistake; 1987- Illinois v. Krull- extended to instances where the police act in reliance on a statute that is later declared unconstitutional
Inevitable Discovery Exception
part of Exclusionary Rule; Nix v. Williams, 1984); permits the use at trial of evidence illegally obtained by the police if they can demonstrate they they would have discovered the evidence anyway by legal means; burden on police to prove this
response made by the defendant to a charge in a criminal trial
Affirmative Defense
justification and excuse defenses; defendant must raise them in order for the jury to consider them (burden of production); meet burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence, although some states have a greater burden of persuasion on insanity defense and other states require the prosecution to disprove an affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt
Justification Defense
part of Affirmative Defense; raised when the defendant admits he or she is responsible for the act but claims the under the circumstances the acts was not criminal- that is was lawful; justified behavior precludes punishment becaue the conduct lackes blameworthiness; self-defense, defense of others or property, consent, and execution of public duties
part of Justification Defense; defendant can demonstrate that he used force to repel an imminent, unprovoked attack that would have caused him serious injury; defendant can only use as much force as he honestly and reasonably believes is necessary to repel the attack-can't use excessive force; asserted only against an aggressor using unlawful force; applies to both deadly and non-deadly uses of force; one can use deadly force only when faced with it; many limitations
Retreat Doctrine
limitation to self-defense; a person must retreat rather than use deadly force if it is possible to do soo without endangering the retreator; used by majority of states
True Man Doctrine
limitation to self-defense; the victim of an attack need not retreat and may use whatever force is necessary to repel an attack, even if a safe retreat was possible; few states allow this doctrine
Castle Doctrine
limitation to self-defense; a person attacked in the home does not have to retreat, even if retreat is possible; used by some states
Defense of Others or Property*******
part of Justification Defense; most states restrict the use of deadly force to defense of the person or the home and allow only nondeadly force for defense of property
part of Justification Defense; persons may consent to suffer what would otherwise be considered a legal harm; limited and must be demonstrated that the consent was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; there can be no duress, trickery, or incompetence involved in obtaining the consent; one cannot consent after the fact to injuries already received; one cannot consent to serious injury, as to do so is assumed irrational
Execution of Public Duties
part of Justification Defense; at common law, police could use deadly force to apprehend any fleeing felon- felonies were capital offenses and difficult to catch a fleeing felon (fleeing felon rule); Tennessee v. Garner (1985)- police use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing criminal suspects was limited by the fourth amendment, which requires that all seizures be reasonable
Excuse Defenses
part of Affirmative Defense; defendant admits that what he did was wrong but argues that under the circumstances he is not responsible for the improper conduct; duress, intoxication, mistake, age, and insanity
part of Excuse Defenses; limited; most states now allow the defense for all crimes except murder
part of Excuse Defenses; effects of either alcohol or drugs; voluntary- never provides a complete defense, but it may be used to mitigate the punishment; involuntary- may provide a defense if it can be shown that the actor was unaware that he was being drugged; never recognized as a defense in situations where intoxication is an element of the crime (drunk driving)
part of Excuse Defenses; historically, youth has been treated as a defense to criminal liability on the ground that persons below a certain age lack the requisite mental capability to form mens rea (criminal intent; common law- children under age 7 were incompetent; today- various jurisdictions define the age of majority at different ages, from 16-21; juvenile court established as an alternative, more forgiving approach to juvenile offenders and was based on the parens patriae doctrine (state should act in the best interest of the child); this doctrine slowly given way to an increased desire to treat juveniles similarly to adult offenders
part of Excuse Defenses; legal term that describes mental illness; excuses criminal liability by impairing the mens rea fo teh defendant with several legal tests that focus on the reason and willpower of the defendant
M'Naghten Test
test for Insanity; sees if defendant doesn't know right from wrong; two prong test- defendant must suffer from a disease or defect of the mind and this disease must cause the defendant to not know the nature and quality of the criminal act or to not know right from wrong;
Irresistible Impulse Test******
test for Insanity; used when a defendant is unable to control his conduct because he suffers from a mental disease; defendant is not responsible if a mental disease kept him from controlling his conduct, even if the person knows the conduct is wrong; broader than the right-wrong test; ignores mental illnesses that involve reflection
Durham Test
test for Insanity; defendant is not criminally responsible if his act was "the product of mental disease or defect;" also called product rule
Substantial Capacity Test******
test for Insanity; defendant lacks substantial capacity to either contro his conduct or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct; developed by American Law Institute, which drafted the Model Penal Code, and became the majority rule during 1970's; modified version of right-wrong and irresisible tests; lacks substantial, not total, capacity; a person who knows right from wrong but doesn't appreciate it may be excused, unlike right-wrong test;

Deck Info