Description
5 Reaction Papers - Need Module 1 asap, it already past due
5 Case Briefing - Need Module 1 asap, it already past due
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
Running head: PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Reaction Paper: Presumption of Innocence
Name
Institution
1
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
2
Reaction Paper: Presumption of Innocence
I think that there is, perhaps, no greater rule of criminal law than the presumption
of innocence principle. The right to a fair trial has several fundamental components, one
of which is the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a legal
principle, which holds that a person is innocent until proven guilty (LaFave, 2003). Many
jurisdictions in the United States regard the presumption of innocence as a core right of a
suspected person in criminal proceedings. Aside from U.S. law, it is found in Article 11
of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This principle places the
burden of proof on the prosecution, which has the duty to gather and present substantial
evidence to persuade the trial court that the accused person is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. Where there is reasonable doubt, the trier of the facts must acquit the accused.
Under English common law, accused defendants are presumed innocent until the state
proves guilt in criminal matters, but in civil matters, the burden of proof lies on a balance
of probabilities. Under American law, however, the weight of proof always on the one
accusing.
The maxim is not a part of the U.S. Constitution as it was adopted from English
common law. The United States Supreme Court officially introduced the doctrine of
presumption of innocence into American law through its decision of Coffin v. U.S. 156
U.S. 432 (1895) (Roberts & Zuckerman, 2010). In this case, a lower court had declined to
instruct the jury that individuals accused of crimes are innocent until compelling evidence
shows that they are guilty. The subordinate court’s refusal was the basis of the appeal to
the Supreme Court. Although the lower court did, in fact, instruct the jury on the
dynamics of reasonable doubt and the rules of evidence, the task of the Supreme Court
was to find out whether focussing on reasonable doubt is the same as the presumption of
innocence. It concluded that the court denied the accused persons the right to fair trial by
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
3
not assuming them innocent until their guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Thus,
this marked the entry of the legal maxim into American law.
The doctrine of the presumption of innocence is an enduring one which has
survived for a long time in history. It is not a modern concept. As I was reading about the
history of the principle, I thought it was a creation of the Coffin decision. However, my
readings revealed to me that it goes back to the early modern periods of the late thirteenth
century where it was a tool to defend marginalized defendants such as heretics, Jews, and
witches. It was a means to fight torture in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Perhaps
the reason it has endured all this time, a least in my view, is that it is a reflection of the
similar and open nature of jurisprudence and legal systems. It reminds us that that fair
trial is a fundamental human phenomenon that is central to the core conceptions of law
and justice. Its endurance also shows us that it is a bedrock to any legal and justice system
and the foundation of the concept of a fair trial. This fundamental nature of the
presumption of innocence maxim is why the U.S. Supreme Court in, Taylor v. Kentucky
436 U.S. 478 (1978), raised it to constitutional dimension (Lippke, 2016). Here, it stated
that the right to a fair trial of an accused person in a criminal matter is infringed when the
trial court does not issue a requested instruction on the presumption of innocence.
In sum, one of the most fundamental aspects of the right to a fair trial is the
presumption of innocence. It declares that an individual who is accused of a crime is
innocent until proven guilty. Many jurisdictions in the United States regard the
presumption of innocence as a core legal right of a suspected person in criminal
proceedings. It is a cornerstone doctrine of American legal system. Although it can be
limited in some instances, such as in times of public emergencies, it is a bedrock maxim
in criminal law.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
4
References
“Coffin v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432, 15 S. Ct. 394, 39 L. Ed. 481.” (n.d.). Retrieved from
www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?...Y. Coffin+v.+U.S.
LaFave, W. R. (2003). Substantive criminal law. Eagan, MN: Thomson/West.
Lippke, R. L. (2016). Taming the presumption of innocence. Oxford, UK; New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Roberts, P., & Zuckerman, A. A. S. (2010). Criminal evidence. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Running head: CASE BRIEF
1
Case Brief: U.S. v. Thompson
Name
Institution
CASE BRIEF
2
Case Brief: U.S. v. Thompson
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, 25 F.3d 1558 (11th Cir. 1994)
v.
Monte Dale THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Parties: United States of America (Plaintiff-Appellee) v. Monte Dale Thompson,
(Defendant-Appellant)
Facts:
Thompson’s appeal results from his allegation that he enjoyed immunity from conviction
on the firearms offenses. His appeal relied on the argument that the lower court erred in
denying him his application to dismiss the indictment as the government granted him
immunity from prosecution.
Prior Proceedings:
Thompson, the Appellant, in this case, was indicted for five counts of firearms offenses.
He filed an application to dismiss because he alleged the existence of an oral immunity
grant. The district court denied his motion. The government brought a motion in limine to
prevent him from giving evidence, as it was a strict liability offense. He appealed to the
Court of Appeal his conviction for the offenses.
Issues Presented or Questions of Law:
The issue was whether the district court erred in denying the appellant his motion to
dismiss. The other determination was whether the court erred in affirming the
government’s in limine motion that prevented the appellant from presenting his evidence.
Arguments or Objectives of the Parties:
The government contended that there was immunity agreement between itself and
Thompson. Thompson argued that the agreement existed.
CASE BRIEF
3
Holding/Rule of Law:
A defendant may use the entrapment by estoppel defense to prevent from strict liability
offenses. Also, to deny the grant of a motion to dismiss an indictment due to an immunity
agreement, a court must satisfy itself that no such agreement existed.
Rationale:
The court correctly used the basic principles of contracts to determine whether an
immunity agreement existed and found that it did not. Since there was no agreement, it
could not have granted the motion to dismiss. However, the court erred in allowing the
government’s motion because it held that the entrapment by estoppel defense did not
apply to strict liability cases.
Conclusion:
The district court did not err in refusing to dismiss Thompson’s motion for dismissal. The
court, however, erred in allowing the motion in limine to the government.
CASE BRIEF
4
Reference
“U.S. v. Thompson.”...