Civil Law (administrative)o Wrong against individual/groupo Automobile accident, wrong against a persono Plaintiff V. Defendanto Plaintiff are people involved in the complainto Defendant is defendingo Vs. is an adversarial lawsuito Lawsuito Name of the precedingo When you sue someone its called a lawsuito Burden of Proof: By a preponderance of the evidence o If arguments are equal, the plaintiff will wino No burden of proof must be tipped beyond the scaleo “proponderance” means the greater weight; “tipping scale” could be 51-49o The plaintiff has to prove this and they may have a lot of doubt, but they have to be at more than 50%o If there is an equal side then they wont win, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, they have to tip the scale. The plaintiff has to meet the burden of proof to tip the scale.o Issue: Liability o Liability simply means responsibilityo How much are you responsible for?o Monetary valueo Penalty: Money o How much do you have to payo The plaintiff suffered all of these injuries so they should get a certain amount of money because of a certain amount of liability. Criminal Law o Wrong against societyo If you robbed a bank you are wronging society, it makes everyone elsefearful.o Society feels wronged because of this actiono State V. Defendanto Prosecutor works for the stateo Society as a whole is wrong which is why the entire state is against ito Can be phrased as the common wealth of Massachusetts or Virginia v. defendanto Can also be phrased as the people of California V. Defendanto If it is a federal case It can be “United States V. John Doeo Prosecutiono Known as the prosecutiono They prosecute the defendanto Burden of Proof: Beyond a Reasonable doubto Much more popular and well knowno Reasonable doubt is said to be debatable o Reasonable doubt on a scale from 1-100 must be in the 90s, must be so beyond a reasonable doubt that it has to be trueo If there is a doubt then consider everything because the penalties are much harsher in a criminal case.o Issue: Guilt/Innocence o Basically, are you guilty or are you innocento Penalty: Fine, Jail, Death o Currently 2/3 of the states offer the death penaltyo Penalties are harsher due to the severity of the case.o Death would be the most ultimate penalty you can get. o The Florida Standard Jury Instruction o A reasonable doubt is not a possible doubt, a speculative or imaginary or forced doubt, such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. o Judge tells jury during a criminal case the above statute. However, English professors decided the language was so terrible and hard to understand that they published a revision. After much debate it was decided that they were going to keep the original because so many people have been prosecuted under it that it wouldn’t be fair to change it. Would allow criminals to attempt to re-try case because if the Supreme Court changed it something must be wrong with it, therefore they kept it. Even though they did not adopt the new revision, they agree that it is better.o Sums it up in the revision and said: if you have a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. o Came up with better instructions, more focused on jury’s understanding of reasonable doubto Examples of Crimeso Insanity plea: Tried to prove mens rea: Andrea Yates case, she drowned her five children in the bathtub and called the police (showing intent she knew it was wrong which is why she called the police) She was charged with two capital murder charges for the deaths of her five children, tried to pull an insanity defense, they found her not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.She explained that she had post partum psychosis after she gave birth to her children.- Jurors questioned, this was the second time, she knew she did something wrong because she called the police and that proves that she knew it was wrong. She was proven to be have previous depression and had been hospitalized before for this, had weird dreams about this The court reached a guilty verdict because McNaughton rule said “at the time” and she called the police, which meant she knew it was wrong. They only charged her with 2 capital murders instead of 5 because if they lost the case they still have 3 more charges they can bring up.- What she did was similar to a law and order episode and she got this in her head and that’s why she committed the crime, it was later found that there was no such thing.- Guilty the first time, not guilty the second time (mental disease) currently in a mental hospital. o Not right to put someone in jail that is sick.- A person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity because of mental disease, you MAY be committed. It is not mandatory.o If your not dangerous to yourself or others you cant be put away.o Insane at the time of the act.o You can no longer be ill later on.o In our system, you must have both mens rea and actus reus to prove guilt. o Both must be there at time of committing the crime.o Mens Rea- Criminal Intento If you prove No Mens Rea, you are innocento just because it is presumed you did something doesn’t mean you did it there is room for rebuttle.o At the time they committed the act, they had the criminal intent to commit the act. Judges are not mind readers, they do not know what isin the persons head at the time of the crime Use therapists and psychiatrists to prove o Irresistible Urge Rule: An irresistible impulse of a person due to mental disease or defect, has uncontrollable urge to commit a criminalact the person is not criminally responsible. Kleptomania – compulsive stealing Pyromania – uncontrollable urge to set fireo Can be either irresistible urge rule or M’Naughten ruleo Very hard to prove, the law presumes you meant to do the acto Defined to be an easy way outo The presumption allows rebuttal, just because they are charged doesn’t mean that they actually intended to commit this act. Attorney present case in the most favorable light When a person comes in and admits to a lawyer, the lawyer goes through the case and a list of defenses to make sure they cant presume the intent. If the defense does its best job in presenting its case, and the prosecutor does this then the jury will be best equipped to make the best decision.- Lets take a look at this
View Full Document
Unlocking...