Complete Question:
Casey is on trial under criminal allegations that she engaged in fraudulent behavior at the company she manages. She is worried when
the plaintiff alleges that it has "unambiguous proof that Casey is guilty. Which of the following is most likely true?
1. The plaintiff will most likely prove Casey is guilty, since criminal charges only need to meet a prima facie burden of proof.
2. Casey need not worry about the plaintiff's evidence, since parties tend to boast about the level of proof they can establish anyway.
3. If the plaintiff does have unambiguous evidence that meets a "clear and convincing" burden of proof, Casey will most likely be found guilty.
4. If the plaintiff provides proof only up to the level of "clear and convincing," Casey can still be acquitted.
Answer:
3. If the plaintiff does have unambiguous evidence that meets a "clear and convincing" burden of proof, Casey will most likely be found guilty.
Explanation:
In criminal charges, it is expected that the plaintiff will discharge the burden of proof. The burden of proof is a legal duty which ensures that the truth of the facts are clearly established by the person alleging that a crime had been committed. The accused (defendant) is initially presumed innocent under the doctrine of "presumption of innocence". Then, the plaintiff must provide persuasive evidence to establish the truth (unambiguous evidence). After establishing the truth of the facts (providing unambiguous evidence), the plaintiff has an added or heightened burden because he or she is still expected to provide convincing evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt (clear and convincing) that the defendant committed the crime. This is the situation in a criminal case for a defendant to be found guilty.
