In the Eyes of the Law
In the eyes of the law, we are all "innocent until proven guilty", however the reality that occurs in courts across the state of Wisconsin and the nation every day is that an accused person is often assumed to be guilty, and often needs to prove his innocence to a jury in order to avoid a mistaken conviction.
In many instances, the laws of Wisconsin require the prosecution to prove an element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Meanwhile, the law provides that the defendant need not prove that the element did not occur or exist. However, many defendants who attempt to represent themselves or hire an attorney experienced in other areas of law find themselves on the short end of the stick when the verdict is read - guilty as charged. And because they did not have an experienced criminal defense attorney beside them to object to the many procedures, rulings and other objectionable aspects of a criminal trial, they have nothing to appeal. If you are a defendant, it may be wise for you to think of the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty" in terms of "defending your innocence". For that, you have but once chance, and it usually requires an experienced, aggressive and previously successful criminal defense attorney to do this for you.
If you are facing criminal charges, contact an attorney experienced in criminal law. Most Wisconsin criminal defense attorneys will provide you with an initial free consultation so that you can ask questions about the state's accusations. As always, we invite you to contact our office for a professional, straight-forward honest assessment of your situation and how the law might affect you today and in the future. And you can call on our dime: 1-866-262-4599.
Helpful information:
Beyond a reasonable doubt
Criminal trials in Wisconsin
Grand jury proceedings
The Sexual Assault Stigma
Showing posts with label Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. Show all posts
Friday, October 24, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Burden of Proof
Why is the burden of proof different for police and prosecutors, or for an arrest or conviction?
An arrest is not a conviction. Formal charges are not a conviction.
The police are looking for a suspect and information that they can pass to the district attorney - the prosecutor - and say, "this person probably did the crime."
The evidence upon which they base those decisions isn't subjected the scrutiny of a jury or judge trial, and in most instances, the person isn't represented by a criminal defense attorney.
It is simply enough for the police to be able to say, "we have probable cause" or "this guy probably committed the crime."
That's enough evidence to arrest the suspect, charge him or her, and start the prosecution process. Then the suspect is released unless the charge is a felony. That isn't enough evidence to convict the person and take away his or her liberties.
Conversely, the district attorney seeks to charge a person with a crime when he or she has been told by the chief of police that they have enough evidence to support the charge and the DA looks at the evidence and concurs. The DA should be more than "probably" sure that the alleged defendant committed the crime. The DA will look at the evidence from the standpoint of the probability of obtaining a conviction.
At the next level - the trial - the burden of proof is even higher. At that level, the judge in a bench trial or the jury in a jury trial must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime.
A person is innocent until proven guilty. If they are proven guilty, their personal liberties will be restricted. Our system guarantees people who are accused of a crime the right to face their accusers, to cross examine the witnesses that accused them of the crime, to examine the evidence presented against them, and to provide their own witnesses. People also have the right to give testimony on their own behalf or to refrain from taking the stand.
That level of proof and cross examination cannot occur in the district attorney's office, nor can it occur in the police station. It can only occur during a trial.
During a recent interview by Wisconsin Channel 3000 with Attorney Chris Van Wagner, TV3000 examined this very issue as it related to a recent arrest of a "suspected" sexual assault offender. Shortly after the arrest, police questioned whether the arrested suspect even could have committed the crime - the facts just didn't fit. Police released their suspect, but tied him to a tether and monitored his actions.
In another interview, Attorney Chris Van Wagner analyzed Scott Jensen's new trial. In that situation, evidence in the first trial that should have been presented to the jury for their consideration was not. When evidence is withheld - particuarly when it is critical to the jury's decision - justice has not been served. See Jensen's Trial for more information.
An arrest is not a conviction. Formal charges are not a conviction.
The police are looking for a suspect and information that they can pass to the district attorney - the prosecutor - and say, "this person probably did the crime."
The evidence upon which they base those decisions isn't subjected the scrutiny of a jury or judge trial, and in most instances, the person isn't represented by a criminal defense attorney.
It is simply enough for the police to be able to say, "we have probable cause" or "this guy probably committed the crime."
That's enough evidence to arrest the suspect, charge him or her, and start the prosecution process. Then the suspect is released unless the charge is a felony. That isn't enough evidence to convict the person and take away his or her liberties.
Conversely, the district attorney seeks to charge a person with a crime when he or she has been told by the chief of police that they have enough evidence to support the charge and the DA looks at the evidence and concurs. The DA should be more than "probably" sure that the alleged defendant committed the crime. The DA will look at the evidence from the standpoint of the probability of obtaining a conviction.
At the next level - the trial - the burden of proof is even higher. At that level, the judge in a bench trial or the jury in a jury trial must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime.
A person is innocent until proven guilty. If they are proven guilty, their personal liberties will be restricted. Our system guarantees people who are accused of a crime the right to face their accusers, to cross examine the witnesses that accused them of the crime, to examine the evidence presented against them, and to provide their own witnesses. People also have the right to give testimony on their own behalf or to refrain from taking the stand.
That level of proof and cross examination cannot occur in the district attorney's office, nor can it occur in the police station. It can only occur during a trial.
During a recent interview by Wisconsin Channel 3000 with Attorney Chris Van Wagner, TV3000 examined this very issue as it related to a recent arrest of a "suspected" sexual assault offender. Shortly after the arrest, police questioned whether the arrested suspect even could have committed the crime - the facts just didn't fit. Police released their suspect, but tied him to a tether and monitored his actions.
In another interview, Attorney Chris Van Wagner analyzed Scott Jensen's new trial. In that situation, evidence in the first trial that should have been presented to the jury for their consideration was not. When evidence is withheld - particuarly when it is critical to the jury's decision - justice has not been served. See Jensen's Trial for more information.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Murder Trial - Trials by Jury
For more than twenty-five years, I have been involved in murder trials. Without a doubt, they are the most serious, most demanding trials – for all involved. Murder trials involve a great deal of time, money, energy and emotion - from the moment a person is accused until the moment the verdict is rendered. The lawyers obsess for weeks before and during trial on such questions as jury selection, trial strategies, and points weak and strong in their case. But those burdens, undertaken willingly by the lawyers, pale in comparison to the burden placed on each of the jurors, which is – in essence – to determine a person’s fate. That burden- undertaken “voluntarily” but feeling more like conscripted service (we all must be willing to serve as jurors) – requires that jurors set aside their personal lives, their work and their families and listen to weeks of arduous and often emotional testimony before retiring to the jury room. In that room, of course, they must then shoulder the greatest burden – decide the facts, individually and then collectively, and without passion or prejudice for anyone. We ask no greater task of an ordinary citizen, and we each undertake that thankless job, because as a society, we wish to be known as the most beneficent and civilized society. From such momentous, important work from ordinary, everyday people do we hold on tightly to our freedoms.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Jurors In Mark Jensen Murder Trial Return Guilty Verdict
The jurors in the Mark Jensen trial returned their verdict: murder. Mark Jensen was convicted of First Degree Intentional Homicide, a Class A Felony in the state of Wisconsin punishable by a mandatory life sentence to prison.
Under Wisconsin's sentencing laws, Jensen may be eligible for parole after serving at least 20 years. Parole is at the court's discretion.
Under Wisconsin's sentencing laws, Jensen may be eligible for parole after serving at least 20 years. Parole is at the court's discretion.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Day 2 Jensen Murder Trial Jury Deliberations
What does it mean when the jury deliberates for two days?
That is a question that many criminal defense attorneys ask when they wait for the jury's verdict. Some say that it means a hung jury (and it likely does in many cases), but the jury is going over evidence from the trial a piece at a time.
That is a question that many criminal defense attorneys ask when they wait for the jury's verdict. Some say that it means a hung jury (and it likely does in many cases), but the jury is going over evidence from the trial a piece at a time.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Jensen Trial - Jury Deliberations Begin
The trial of Mark Jensen in State of Wisconsin -v- Mark D. Jensen has come to a close, and the jury has begun deliberations. Over the course of a 7-week trial, the jurors have listened to more than 160 hours of evidence. And now, they carry the greatest burden of all - the burden of determining whether reasonable doubt exists.
The jury in the Jensen trial is comprised of 7 women and 5 men from the local Walworth County area. The men's occupations include a truck driver, an engineering technician, production tester, facilities manager, and machine operator. The women's occupations include a medical secretary, a housewife, an unemployed female, a retired female, a certified nursing assistant, a proofreader, and a bookkeeper.
Thus far, the deliberating jurors have asked for certain testimonial transcripts and evidence: the letter allegedly written by Julie Jensen, testimony from Mark Jensen's co-worker, photos of Julie Jensen when medical personal arrived at her home, and both Mark and Julie's day planners.
The jury in the Jensen trial is comprised of 7 women and 5 men from the local Walworth County area. The men's occupations include a truck driver, an engineering technician, production tester, facilities manager, and machine operator. The women's occupations include a medical secretary, a housewife, an unemployed female, a retired female, a certified nursing assistant, a proofreader, and a bookkeeper.
Thus far, the deliberating jurors have asked for certain testimonial transcripts and evidence: the letter allegedly written by Julie Jensen, testimony from Mark Jensen's co-worker, photos of Julie Jensen when medical personal arrived at her home, and both Mark and Julie's day planners.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Jensen Trial Continues
Jury deliberations were expected to begin today at the end of closing arguments, but the closing arguments haven't ended. See Jury Deliberations.
In a criminal trial, the prosecution makes its initial closing argument, then the defense makes its closing argument, and then the prosecution gets the last word. That "last word" took more time than the judge anticipated, a fact he pointed out when commenting on his expectation to "send the trial to the jury" today.
At 6:20 p.m. tonight, the judge polled the jury, not for their verdict in Mr. Jensen's trial, but rather for the time that they wanted to start the trial tomorrow - they voted for 8:30 AM - and then he recessed the trial and emphasized his intent to "charge the jury" tomorrow and refrain from holding the jurors any longer than necessary. The defense agreed, and added that they were also interested in not having Mr. Jensen's life unnecessarily put on hold any longer.
A pool of 19 jurors were selected for the Jensen trial. Twelve jurors for the jury, and 7 additional jurors (called alternates) if needed. Alternate jurors are selected for very serious felony trials to prevent a mistrial in case one or more jurors is unable to serve.
The court ordered the defense and prosecuting attorneys to report at 8:15 a.m. tomorrow morning to answer the question, "How many jurors should be dismissed before deliberations begin?" The court posed that question to the attorneys yesterday, with the anticipation that the court would dismiss those alternates today.
So, why are closing arguments taking so long? The prosecuting attorney is giving his rebuttals to the defense's closing arguments, and to that end has prepared a list of the testimony and evidence in the state's case. For each item on the list, he is summarizing the state's case, as well as hypothesizing other possible reasons for past activities and evidence in the trial, a summation technique that met with a few objections from the defense and a motion for a mistrial.
The court denied the defense's motion for a mistrial.
The court indicated that the prosecuting attorney is expected to be done with his closing arguments by noon tomorrow, with deliberations beginning as soon as the jury instructions are done.
In a criminal trial, the prosecution makes its initial closing argument, then the defense makes its closing argument, and then the prosecution gets the last word. That "last word" took more time than the judge anticipated, a fact he pointed out when commenting on his expectation to "send the trial to the jury" today.
At 6:20 p.m. tonight, the judge polled the jury, not for their verdict in Mr. Jensen's trial, but rather for the time that they wanted to start the trial tomorrow - they voted for 8:30 AM - and then he recessed the trial and emphasized his intent to "charge the jury" tomorrow and refrain from holding the jurors any longer than necessary. The defense agreed, and added that they were also interested in not having Mr. Jensen's life unnecessarily put on hold any longer.
A pool of 19 jurors were selected for the Jensen trial. Twelve jurors for the jury, and 7 additional jurors (called alternates) if needed. Alternate jurors are selected for very serious felony trials to prevent a mistrial in case one or more jurors is unable to serve.
The court ordered the defense and prosecuting attorneys to report at 8:15 a.m. tomorrow morning to answer the question, "How many jurors should be dismissed before deliberations begin?" The court posed that question to the attorneys yesterday, with the anticipation that the court would dismiss those alternates today.
So, why are closing arguments taking so long? The prosecuting attorney is giving his rebuttals to the defense's closing arguments, and to that end has prepared a list of the testimony and evidence in the state's case. For each item on the list, he is summarizing the state's case, as well as hypothesizing other possible reasons for past activities and evidence in the trial, a summation technique that met with a few objections from the defense and a motion for a mistrial.
The court denied the defense's motion for a mistrial.
The court indicated that the prosecuting attorney is expected to be done with his closing arguments by noon tomorrow, with deliberations beginning as soon as the jury instructions are done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)