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 Burden of Proof. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Burden of Proof. 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.
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.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Triple Murder Charges Filed
One Year After A Triple Murder, Charges Are Filed
One year ago, on January 11, 2007, a triple murder took the lives of three people at their Janesville, Wisconsin home. Today, charges were filed against a suspect.
When charges lagged and were not immediately filed after the killing, the public began asking questions. As the weeks passed, many people were very upset over the district attorney's failure to file charges. In a Madison TV 3000 special segment, we discussed the burden of proof in a criminal trial, and compared that to the burden of proof required for an arrest. (The Burden of Proof - Beyond A Reasonable Doubt)
Today, the focus is on a one year delay in criminal charges. Why do prosecutors delay charging a person? What happens in the time between the crime and the date on which criminal charges are filed against a suspect?
In some instances, prosecutors choose to delay charges for a particular reason. While in other instances, a delay may be caused by some circumstance outside of the prosecutor's control. It could never be said that the act of filing charges on the one year anniversary date of a crime is not without impact, or that charges filed on the fifth anniversary of a crime send a very different message.
In some cases, a delay is a legal strategy, but most delays are caused by circumstances beyond the prosecutor's control such as when criminal records are not readily available, or the crime lab is backed up (see Wood Speaks Out On Criminal Lab Delays).
Whether criminal charges are filed immediately, the single most important factor to keep in mind is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Whether a prosecutor is quick to file charges or waits to file charges for some certain event to occur should not be construed as an inference of guilt or innocence.
Helpful information:
Wisconsin Criminal Trials - Proceedings explains the criminal trial process and jury selection
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access provides access to some circuit court records including criminal charges, arrests, and convictions
WIBA - Madison 1310
Wisconsin Statutes
Wisconsin Circuit Courts
One year ago, on January 11, 2007, a triple murder took the lives of three people at their Janesville, Wisconsin home. Today, charges were filed against a suspect.
When charges lagged and were not immediately filed after the killing, the public began asking questions. As the weeks passed, many people were very upset over the district attorney's failure to file charges. In a Madison TV 3000 special segment, we discussed the burden of proof in a criminal trial, and compared that to the burden of proof required for an arrest. (The Burden of Proof - Beyond A Reasonable Doubt)
Today, the focus is on a one year delay in criminal charges. Why do prosecutors delay charging a person? What happens in the time between the crime and the date on which criminal charges are filed against a suspect?
In some instances, prosecutors choose to delay charges for a particular reason. While in other instances, a delay may be caused by some circumstance outside of the prosecutor's control. It could never be said that the act of filing charges on the one year anniversary date of a crime is not without impact, or that charges filed on the fifth anniversary of a crime send a very different message.
In some cases, a delay is a legal strategy, but most delays are caused by circumstances beyond the prosecutor's control such as when criminal records are not readily available, or the crime lab is backed up (see Wood Speaks Out On Criminal Lab Delays).
Whether criminal charges are filed immediately, the single most important factor to keep in mind is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Whether a prosecutor is quick to file charges or waits to file charges for some certain event to occur should not be construed as an inference of guilt or innocence.
Helpful information:
Wisconsin Criminal Trials - Proceedings explains the criminal trial process and jury selection
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access provides access to some circuit court records including criminal charges, arrests, and convictions
WIBA - Madison 1310
Wisconsin Statutes
Wisconsin Circuit Courts
Friday, November 23, 2007
Jensen Should Get A Fair Shake
Why was Scott Jensen's conviction reversed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals?
http://criminalattorney.vanwagnerwood.com/
http://criminalattorney.vanwagnerwood.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)