Lawyer David Serna Shares What The Burden Of Proof Is

What is the Burden of Proof?

There is always an initial presumption in a legal dispute that one party is correct. In contrast, the other party carries the burden of providing relevant and substantial evidence to establish the truth. Lawyer David Serna reminds fellow lawyers that the prosecution must provide compelling evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Lawyer David Serna also believes that lawyers should never forget that the defendant does not carry the burden of proving their innocence. But it is in their best interest to give an honest alibi or any other evidence to help their case.

 

The Two Concepts of the Burden of Proof

 

The Burden of Production

The burden of production describes one party’s obligation to provide substantial evidence to support a particular fact. Lawyer David Serna reminds fellow lawyers that determining the satisfaction of the burden of production is not an issue of fact for the jury but an issue of law. Lawyers can treat the burden of production’s satisfaction as establishing a prima facie case, which involves proving a legally required rebuttable presumption.

 

The Burden of Persuasion

The burden of persuasion describes one party’s obligation to present compelling evidence to convince the factfinder that a particular fact is true to a required degree of belief. Lawyer David Serna reminds his colleagues again that the prosecution’s burden of proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt. It is best if lawyers remember that the burden of persuasion encompasses two essential elements: how persuasively one party must prove these facts and the facts they must plead and prove to prevail on a particular issue.

 

Lawyer David Serna believes his fellow lawyers should always go back to the basics - the four fundamental criminal law principles. Besides actus reus and mens rea, it is essential to remember the principle of burden of proof. If you need legal advice, you can reach lawyer David Serna, a nationally recognized defense lawyer, via email, telephone, video conferencing, and in-person visits under strict disinfecting protocol and mask requirements.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Impeaching a Witness Based on Inconsistencies

One way to undermine the evidence of an opponent is to impeach his or her witnesses based on inconsistencies in his or her testimony. Lawyers are always advised to listen during the direct and cross-examination because this is the perfect time to observe the testimony and behavior of the witnesses of their opponent. David Serna, a lawyer of over 40 years, offers helpful tips to both new and experienced lawyers. Today, he discusses prior statements of witnesses governed by the Federal Rules on Evidence 613. Discrepancies in testimonies are expected when several witnesses are testifying to the same incident. It is but natural that these individuals remember the details of the incident differently.   However, lawyers should consider only those errors and testimonial inconsistencies that are significant and deserving of the jury’s attention. Persistently bringing up minor inconsistencies will only waste the time of the court and will most likely annoy the jury. FRE 613 prov...
Read more

Cross-Examination of a Crash Reconstructionist

Crash reconstruction is a science that involves mathematics and physics to determine what happened before, during, and after a collision. Reconstruction witnesses testify about the details of a collision, such as the speed of a vehicle, the cause of a collision, and the motion of the vehicle before and after an impact. David Serna, a lawyer of over 40 years, advises young prosecutors in preparing for the cross-examination of defense reconstruction witnesses. The prosecutor must know whether the evidence or data gathered and used by the witness supports a reliable conclusion. Here are three things to remember before conducting a cross-examination of reconstruction witnesses. 1.        Review the crash report It is important to read the crash report of the opponent’s expert crash reconstructionist. The prosecutor’s crash reconstructionist can help him understand the factors considered by the opponent’s reconstruction witness and determine the shor...
Read more

The Rules on Preliminary Hearing and Trial

Preliminary Hearings take place before a judge and only after the prosecutor has filed charges against a person. These hearings are not trials, which may be conducted before a group of individuals, called a grand jury. There are, however, procedural rules on trial that similarly apply to preliminary hearings. In this brief article, David Serna, a lawyer and educator for many years, discusses some of the rules that apply to preliminary hearings and trials. Like a trial, an ordinary witness can testify during a preliminary hearing. Generally, the testimony must be based on what they perceive and not on opinion. However, during a preliminary hearing, unlike a trial, hearsay evidence is allowed and admissible. Three things can happen after a preliminary hearing. If the charges are weak and unfounded, the judge would most likely dismiss the case outright. If there is, however, a finding of probable cause, the judge may either reduce or retain the charges made by the prosecutor...
Read more