Burden of proof?

[vce2009]

So I know that in a criminal case, the burden of proof is beyond resonable doubt, but I was wondering if that was only applicable in the case of a jury of 12? When a jury of 15 is empanelled in the County Court for extremely long trials, is the burden of proof still beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. 15/15 jurors must agree on the verdict?
Thanks!

[Fyrefly]

Burden of proof and a unanimous decision are two different things...

[vce2009]

OK sorry, can you please explain that? My teacher isn't very good, I get confused a lot.

[ninwa]

Hold on, you're confusing yourself. Burden of proof refers to the question of which party (prosecution or defence) must prove the existence of a fact, set of circumstances, etc.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" refers to the standard of proof. It is the extent to which the party with the burden of proof has to prove something, in a criminal trial.

The jurors then decide whether the prosecution has proven the case to this requisite level. A unanimous decision i.e. 15/15 means that all the jurors are in agreement on this point.

It makes no difference how many jurors are empanelled. If it is a criminal case, the burden of proof is (almost) always beyond reasonable doubt.


Disclaimer: I didn't do legal studies in VCE, I'm answering this from what I've learnt in law at uni.

[vce2009]

That makes a lot more sense! Thankyou so much!

[hard]

yer they're two separate things, thanks for explaining ninwa.

[costargh]

If it is a criminal case, the burden of proof is (almost) always beyond reasonable doubt.

Can you please elaborate? I find this interesting. =]

[ninwa]

I'll try

In criminal law there are two types of burdens of proof: evidential and legal.

You must first prove the evidential burden - that there is sufficient evidence for an issue to go before a jury. I believe this is raised at the committal hearing, where there is only a judge and no jury. Here the judge decides what issues will be put to the jury (so the jury's/court's time is not wasted with issues which do not have sufficient supporting evidence)

Only then does the legal burden arise: prove the issue itself to the requisite standard. This happens at the actual trial (often, but not necessarily always, with jury).

For the elements of the crime:
Prosecution has discharged its evidential burden if it has proved, merely on the balance of probabilities, that there is sufficient evidence.
However, then prosecution only discharges its legal burden if it has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the elements of whatever crime is in question are all present.

For the general defences such as self-defence:
Defendant merely has to prove that there is evidence of such a defence on the balance of probabilities.
Legal burden is then on prosecution - i.e. has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is no defence.

For what are called affirmative defences: (includes mental impairment [formerly insanity] and express statutory exceptions)
Both the evidential AND legal burden are on the defendant, but they only have to prove both on the balance of probabilities.


sorry for the ramble, but I do love criminal law ... except when I'm being examined on it