Please use simple grammar as English is not my first language You can copy the definitions from the text < Search 11:53 AM 9% 1 Famous Cases SECTION 1 Nor

Please use simple grammar as English is not my first language You can copy the definitions from the text < Search 11:53 AM 9% 1 Famous Cases SECTION 1 North Carolina vs. Cotton Trial (1984) Criminal Law Criminal law vs. civil law Photo of Bobby Poole (left) and Ronald Cotton (right). Photo credit. In July 1984, Jennifer Thompson was a 22-year- old student at Elon College in North Carolina. It was summertime, and Jennifer was enjoying the break from classes, working as an aerobics instructor at Spa Lady. On the night of her ordeal, she remembered going out to dinner with her boyfriend, Paul, and later having a piercing headache. Paul took her home, rubbed her back and gave her aspirin with water. He left at about 11 p.m. after she had drifted off to sleep. There are two distinct types of law practiced in the United States: criminal law and civil law. Criminal law is the body of law that defines conduct as acceptable and unacceptable forms of behavior. It includes rules that specify how statutes should be applied against persons who violate the law. Criminal law involves the prosecution of a person for an act that has been classified as a crime. The prosecutor initiates the proceedings as a representative of the county or state on behalf of the victim, as well as the other people in the jurisdiction. This is because a person who violates the law is not only harming an individual, but is also harming society as a whole. Persons convicted of a crime may be fined, have their liberties restricted, and may even be incarcerated. At 3 a.m., something startled her. It was the sound of feet shuffling. In her semi-conscious state, she searched for a clue. All she heard was the thrum and rattle of the air conditioner against her window; The second type of law practiced in the United States is civil law. Civil law is the body of law regulating 52 < Search 11:53 AM 9% 1 3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information) [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. and resolving disputes between private parties. Personal injury claims, contracts, property disputes, probate court, and family law cases are all examples of civil law. Unlike criminal law, the victim initiates the lawsuit. The penalties sought are typically monetary, although injunction orders and specific performance remedies are sometimes requested. However, a person can never seek incarceration. For instance, suppose a person enters into a contract with a landscaping company. The person pays in advance for monthly services for the upkeep of his lawn. If the company fails to provide the landscaping services before the end of the month, the customer could then file a lawsuit to recoup the money paid or seek specific performance of the contract, but he would be unable to seek imprisonment against the company employees as damages. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything. Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following: A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence. Another distinguishable characteristic of civil law is the standard of proof. In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was liable by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence means more than 50%; it is just enough to tip the scale towards one side. Contrasted with criminal law, the burden of If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. Florida jury instruction for reasonable doubt. Image credit. 53 < Search 11:53 AM 9% 1 Legal standards of proof proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no definitive percentage; 95% is more or less the appropriate amount. It is when the prosecutor can convince the jury to a moral certainty that they feel an abiding conviction that the defendant is guilty of a crime. 5 Fact vs. Fiction Please tap the photo. There are different standards of proof depending on the legal activity. We have already discussed the burden of proof that is required to find a defendant guilty of a crime (beyond a reasonable doubt) and liable in a civil trial (preponderance of evidence). The standard of proof necessary for a defendant to prevail on an insanity claim in federal court and in Arizona is clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof is on the defendant to show that it was "substantially more likely than not” that the defendant was insane at the time he committed the crime. It is also the standard used by judges to determine the admissibility of evidence in trial. Clear and convincing evidence is a higher burden than preponderance of the evidence, but a lower burden than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. This should not be confused with absolute certainty or finding guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. These last two standards only exist in pop culture. Drug dealer and buyer making a transaction. Photo credit. 54 < Search 11:54 AM 9% 1 Standards of Proof MERE REASONABLE PROBABLE PREPONDERANCE SUSPICION SUSPICION CAUSE OF EVIDENCE Civil case Hunch or gut feeling • Consensual encounter What a police officer needs to: • Detain • Investigate • Stop & frisk (pat down) What a police officer needs for a: • Search • Arrest • Warrant CLEAR AND BEYOND A BEYOND A CONVINCING → REASONABLE SHADOW OF A EVIDENCE DOUBT DOUBT Criminal case • Used to determine insanity in federal cases Used by judges to determine admissibility of evidence in trial Absolute certainty Does not exist: only on TV . 55 < Search 11:54 AM 9% 1 requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that a suspect has or is about to commit a crime. In that scenario, the police officer would also be entitled to frisk the outer layer of the suspect's clothing to search for any hard object that might feel like a weapon.'' This pat down search is not as invasive as a full-blown search conducted with a warrant or as a result of probable cause; it is a cursory search to ensure the officer's safety while conducting an investigation. Reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch, but does not require hard evidence. Matching a description of someone who committed a crime, dropping something suspicious on the ground while evading an officer, and pulling over a driver for a traffic stop are all examples of what would constitute reasonable suspicion to detain an individual. Suspect being frisked in New Orleans. Photo credit. Police officers are required to have a certain type of standard of proof before they can compel contact with the public. If an officer has a hunch, gut feeling, or mere suspicion that a person is engaged in criminal activity, he cannot legally stop or detain that person. He has to rely on the person's willingness to engage in a consensual encounter. He needs to have a higher burden of proof, which is reasonable suspicion. It A person cannot be arrested based on reasonable suspicion-a higher burden of proof of probable cause is required. However, if probable cause develops as a result of the investigatory stop, the officer may arrest the suspect. If the suspect challenges his arrest in court, the judge will make a determination as to whether a reasonable and prudent person would believe that a 56 Purchase answer to see full attachment