 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
What is the State's Burden of Proof for DUI in Baltimore?In relationship to the burden of proof, the manner in which the Attorney communicates (and educates) just how high "beyond a reasonable doubt" is to a jury, often is the difference in a conviction versus being found not guilty of the DUI charge. It is not necessarily what the Attorney says; rather, it is the manner in which he says it. If the jury does not think the burden is very high, it will take less evidence (and less convincing from the prosecutor) to convict you. One reason why I am so successful in trial is my ability to have the jurors realize just how high a burden "beyond a reasonable doubt" is. The following is, in a nutshell, how I go about explaining beyond a reasonable doubt to jurors, and as you can tell, it is a very high burden. The State of Baltimore must prove your guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the highest burden of proof in the justice system. It is not defined, but we do how other burdens of proof have been described. The lowest burden of proof is called probable cause. Have you ever received a ticket that you disagreed with (as opposed to just not liking the fact you received the ticket)? This level of proof is less then a 50-50 chance that you violated the law, but is all the officer needs to write you a ticket, or to arrest you. The next highest burden of proof is called a preponderance of the evidence. This amount of proof occurs in civil courtrooms where people are suing each other for money. A preponderance of the evidence is proof amounting to you being 51% correct. The next highest burden of proof is called clear and convincing evidence. This burden applies to child custody cases. This amount of proof will cause a juror to have a "firm belief" in the matter to be proved. To let the jury understand just how high this burden is, I find two women on the jury panel. I then will ask "Ms. Jones, I want you to look over at Ms. Smith sitting next to you. She has children. How much evidence do you think the government would have to have before they could take Ms. Smiths' children away from her?" I ask several other jurors the same question. I then ask "Ms. Jones, how much evidence would the government have to have to take your kids away from you?" I record their answers and will use them in my final argument. Jurors have told me that the amount of evidence the government would need to take children away would have ranged from "a whole lot," "tons," "beyond a shadow of a doubt," to "I don't think the government could ever have enough to take my kids away!" Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the highest burden of proof. Although not defined, it is a much higher burden the clear and convincing evidence. Why? Your freedom is on the line! A jury must have more then "tons" of evidence that you were intoxicated before they could find you guilty. This is a very simple, yet extremely convincing manner of making a jury understand just how much evidence is required before they can convict a person, thus branding them a criminal for the rest of their life. Simply put, if a juror has a single doubt, based on reason, as to a person being intoxicated, they must follow the law and find them not guilty. |
|