Although the burden of proof is a matter that is left up to the court system to determine and it is the prosecution team that has the responsibility to prove that an individual had committed the offence for which he or she was charged and they must do so beyond a reasonable doubt, when the police are in the process of investigating a matter, they must do so with the view to collecting as much evidence as possible, to equip the prosecuting team with the weapon to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, thus satisfying the burden of proof.
It is the ideal to have the evidence to that effect. However, to provide the minimum is all that is really required; and that is being able to collect enough evidence to prove that the accused person had reasonable motive, reasonable opportunity, just cause and he can be placed within the vicinity at the approximate time of the incident.
We must always remember, in the prosecution or defence effort to prove or disprove a case, word that comes into play is "reasonable". The objective of the prosecution is not only to present evidence to prove that the accused person had motive, cause, opportunities and access but they must also tie into their case the actions of the accused person was irrational or unreasonable. In other words, the actions of the accused person were not what can be expected from reasonable people under the same circumstances. They may prove the actions were excessive or irrational and it was the accused person’s intention to do what they did. Did he or she have reasonable cause, motive, opportunities and access to have done the crime?
In the same manner a person against whom there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that they have committed a crime may be acquitted if his actions were or could be considered reasonable.
In other words, when there is overwhelming evidence that the accused person actually did what he or she was accused of doing, then the defense and the prosecution team get engaged in a battle over the reasonableness of the actions that led to and constituted the specific crime or crimes. In such cases, based on the evidence presented, the jurors are asked to make a presumption of the innocence or guilt of the accused person.
It is important to note that the police are the trained evidence gatherers and they best represents this role when they have a working understanding of how this work affects what happens in the court of law. The police must also understand that it is their investigative skills and painstaking evidence collection that is responsible for making the prosecuting lawyers look professional.
It is the ideal to have the evidence to that effect. However, to provide the minimum is all that is really required; and that is being able to collect enough evidence to prove that the accused person had reasonable motive, reasonable opportunity, just cause and he can be placed within the vicinity at the approximate time of the incident.
We must always remember, in the prosecution or defence effort to prove or disprove a case, word that comes into play is "reasonable". The objective of the prosecution is not only to present evidence to prove that the accused person had motive, cause, opportunities and access but they must also tie into their case the actions of the accused person was irrational or unreasonable. In other words, the actions of the accused person were not what can be expected from reasonable people under the same circumstances. They may prove the actions were excessive or irrational and it was the accused person’s intention to do what they did. Did he or she have reasonable cause, motive, opportunities and access to have done the crime?
In the same manner a person against whom there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that they have committed a crime may be acquitted if his actions were or could be considered reasonable.
In other words, when there is overwhelming evidence that the accused person actually did what he or she was accused of doing, then the defense and the prosecution team get engaged in a battle over the reasonableness of the actions that led to and constituted the specific crime or crimes. In such cases, based on the evidence presented, the jurors are asked to make a presumption of the innocence or guilt of the accused person.
It is important to note that the police are the trained evidence gatherers and they best represents this role when they have a working understanding of how this work affects what happens in the court of law. The police must also understand that it is their investigative skills and painstaking evidence collection that is responsible for making the prosecuting lawyers look professional.
Please note: The information in these articles are no substitute for professional legal advise.
No comments:
Post a Comment