Presumption of innocence

Criminal trials differ from civil proceedings in one very important respect. Since the outcome of a criminal trial may result in the defendant’s loss of liberty or even life, the courts evolved a rule which casts upon the prosecution a heavy burden of proof. No rule of Criminal Law is of more importance than that which requires the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt and not for the latter to establish his innocence; he is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Sec­ondly, they must satisfy the jury of his guilt beyond reason­able doubt. In civil cases where a plaintiff sues a defendant, he who shows that on a balance of probabilities the evidence is in his favour wins the day. In criminal cases, however, the Crown cannot succeed on a mere balance of probabilities. If there is any reasonable doubt whether the accused is guilty, he must be acquitted. An acquittal therefore either means that the jury believe the accused and are satisfied of his in­nocence, or that while not satisfied that lie is innocent, they do not feel sure of his guilt. In England there is no middle verdict such as the Scottish verdict of "not proven" to cover this sort of situation; "not guilty" is the only alternative to a conviction.

The heavier burden of proof required in criminal trials can also be seen to operate in the rules which provide that in certain cases corroboration is necessary. In some instances the rule is one of law and the absence of corroboration is a bar to conviction. For example, the unsworn evidence of a child must be corroborated. A jury cannot convict on such evidence alone, for the law does not consider it sufficiently reliable to warrant a conviction. In a charge of perjury the jury may not by law convict the accused on the uncorrobo­rated evidence of one witness alone. The falsity of the defendant must present sufficient evidence to convince the magistrate there is reason to believe the defendant has committed the crime with which he is charged. The defendant must be pres­ent at this hearing, but he may or may not present evidence on his own behalf.

If the magistrate believes the evidence justifies it, he will order the defendant bound over for trial in the proper court – i.e., placed under bond for appearance at trial, or held in jail if the charge involved is not a bailable offense, or if the defendant is unable to post bond. On the other hand, the magistrate may dismiss the charge and order the defend­ant released if he concludes the state has failed to produce sufficient evidence in the preliminary hearing.

In most instances a criminal case is placed on the court’s calendar for arraignment. On the date fixed, the accused ap­pears, the indictment or information is read to him, his rights are explained by the judge, and he is asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty to the charge. If he pleads not guilty, his case will be set later for trial; if he pleads guilty, it or­dinarily will be set later for sentencing. In cases of minor offenses, sentences may be imposed immediately. But in some states, arraignment and plea are separate proceedings, held on different days.

Дата добавления: 2015-09-01