Evidence that can be proven that an individual committed the crime without need for inference

Evidence or facts that one can draw reasonable inferences from that the person committed the crime i.e. a person holding the murder weapon while near the dead body

Our system is adversarial, with two legs, criminal and civil.  In criminal cases we are supposed to “quest for the truth.”  In civil cases, you have to prove causation and liability.  

Defendant is brought before a magistrate (or a Judge depending on Jurisdiction).  The magistrate ensures that the defendant understands the charges before him and sets a bond.  

Handles Juvenile and Domestic Court Cases, minor offenses.  It is the lowest rung of the court system.  Handles arraignments-Judge ensures that the defendant understands the charges, whether or not the defendant needs an attorney and will appoint one, sets bond and may potentially modify bond and holds the Preliminary Hearing.

The formal charging document in a case.  The indictment contains the basic information that informs the person of the charges against him.  The grand jury hands down the indictment.

1.      On Basis of Indictment:  Handed down from the Grand Jury.

2.      On Basis of Appeal from General District Court:  Misdemeanor convictions / other cases from the General District Court will be given new trials in this court based on appeals. 

Part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reason- able doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure." By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence," used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case.  The burden does not require that guilt be proven beyond EVERY conceivable or possible doubt, but beyond a “reasonable” doubt.  Sure, aliens could have done it, but that isn’t reasonable.  

Aguilar arrested and convicted of a rape; PERK was collected.  Dr. Himes signs off on the Certificate of Analysis and testifies in Court.  Defense tries to object b/c Dr. Himes did not do all the work that went in to the DNA testing, but did supervise those who did. 

Court of Appeals upheld the conviction because a scientific procedure, which could be and was explained in the testimony.   

What does VA Code: 19.2-264.3:1.3. Expert assistance for indigent defendants in capital cases establish?

Defense is entitled to call for experts to review prosecutions findings and may make a motion for the court to appoint them money.

The defense needs to particularize the need for an expert and be able to tell the judge the expected testimony of the expert.

Have the right to request forensic testing at the expense of the commonwealth.

 said BPA's admissibility is up to the Crt (judge) as the gatekeeper and the weight of the evidence is up to the fact finder (the jury)

the testimony made by a qualified person about a scientific, technical, or professional issue. An expert is often called upon to testify due to his/her familiarity with the subject or special training in the field

Level of proof needed for an arrest warrant

Reason to believe an individual committed the crime

                                       i.            Evidence used to lessen the guilt of the defendant

                                     ii.            Evidence used to lesson the punishment or sentence

                                   iii.            It is the duty of the gov’t to turn over any evidence that may exonerate or lessen the guilt/punishment of the defendant

Case involving blood spatter.  June 1976-Dr. Stephen Scher and his friend Martin Dillan are on a hunting trip.  Martin Dillan ends up shot, Dr. Scher states that he tripped because his shoes were untied when chasing a porcupine and accidently shot himself.  Couple months later, Dr. Scher divorces his wife and marries Mr. Dillan’s widow.  They exhumed Mr. Dillan’s body and re-looked at the evidence.  Dr. Scher’s shoes had a bunch of high velocity blood spatter on them, so he had to be closer than what he stated (Dr. Scher said it was from performing CPR).  The blood spatter also refuted Dr. Scher’s statement that he did not see the “accident” occur.  There was also blood spatter on a tree IVO the shooting that shows that Mr. Dillan was sitting on a tree stump when he was shot. In 1997, Dr. Scher was convicted and sentenced to prison, where he died