Reference no: EM133240340
Part 1:
Question 1: In a criminal trial the jury must find a defendant "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." 1) What is the burden of proof in a civil trial, like a tort action for damages?
Question 2: What does beyond a reasonable doubt mean to you, and what are some of the issues with that standard raised by the authors of your book?
Question 3: What does this standard do to the evidentiary requirements to obtain a guilty verdict in a criminal trial?
Question 4: Do you think it is harder now to meet that standard without scientific evidence (like DNA), rather than merely witness testimony and/or other real evidence? Why or why not?
Question 5: Whatever your conclusion in question 4, in your view is that a good thing, or a bad thing, and why?
Part 2:
Question 1: Define and explain the exclusionary rule; (a) what is it, (b) what is its purpose, and (c) why is it important to evidence law?
Question 2: What is the case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states as well as the federal government, and WHY did the Supreme Court do that?
Question 3: (a) What are two of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule listed in your book, and (b) what are some examples of those? (Be sure to discuss U.S. v. Leon).
Question 4: In terms of the purpose of the exclusionary rule, do these exceptions make sense, and why or why not? In other words, do the exceptions still basically preserve the reason for the exclusionary rule, and why or why not? (Discuss each one in turn).
Question 5: The exclusionary rule is controversial because criminal evidence is sometimes excluded (suppressed) from trials, which may lead to a defendant going free. What are your thoughts on this potential outcome?