Cases Relating to Chapter 3 – Burden of Proof

Abstract

Publisher Summary This chapter presents the several case studies related to the burden of proof. The first case deals with “In re Winship.” The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has a vital role the criminal procedure for cogent reasons. The accused during a criminal prosecution has at stake interests of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose his liberty upon conviction and because of the certainty that he would be stigmatized by the conviction. The other case presented in the chapter is of Victor versus Nebraska and State versus Eichelberger. The Victor case discusses several aspects of “reasonable doubt”. The Eichelberger versus State (Ohio) case discusses the evidence of an affirmative defense and preponderance of the evidence. The Ohio Code provides that every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof for all elements of the offense is upon the prosecution.