1.Is the jury present when hearings on the admissibility of a confession are conducted? Cite the applicable rule that applies to this situation and explain the reason for the rule. No, the jury is not present for admissibility of confession hearings. Rule 104 (part C. conducting a hearing so the jury may not hear it) states “Hearing of jury. Hearing on the admissibility of confessions shall in all cases be conducted out of the hearing of the jury.” (Smith) 4. Define burden of proof, burden of going forward, and burden of persuasion.
Burden of proof: is the accuser’s job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (in a criminal trial) or preponderance of the evidence (in Civil Matters) that a crime has been committed and that the accused did in fact commit said crime. (Ingram pg.47) Burden of going forward: is the prosecution’s obligation to introduce prima facie evidence that will move toward meeting the burden of proof. (Ingram pg.47) Burden of persuasion: simply means the burden of convincing the fact finder of the collective truth of evidence presented by prosecution or defense. (Ingram pg.48)
8. What is the difference between a presumption and an inference? Presumption allows the jury in criminal cases to presume a second fact exists based on the proof of the first fact while inference allows the jury to conclude that a second fact is logical and can be reasonably drawn from another fact or group of facts. (Ingram pgs. 145-146) 9. What is a stipulation? Distinguish between a stipulation of testimony and a stipulation of fact. A stipulation is an agreement, admission, or concession made in judicial proceedings by the parties and Hynes2
their attorneys concerning evidence of existing or nonexistent facts. (Ingram pg.186) stipulation of testimony is when the parties agree that if a certain person were present that they would swear under oath to the facts of the stipulation. (Ingram pg.186-187) stipulation of fact is where the parties agree that that the contents of a document are true and uncontested. (Ingram pg. 188) 10. Every person is presumed to be sane. Is this presumption rebuttable or conclusive? Explain your answer.
Sanity is a rebuttable presumption. “A judge may offer the jury instruction that states every person is presumed sane until the contrary is shown by the evidence” (Ingram pg.162) Certain states require that the defendant only show the ability to interact with counsel with a degree of rational understanding and rational and factual understanding of the proceedings. It is presumed that all people are sane however with the introduction of the right evidence a person can be found incompetent to stand trial due to insanity. Works Cited Ingram, Jefferson. Criminal Evidence. Amsterdam: Anderson Publishing, 2012. Smith, Lamar. evidence 2011. Dec. 01