Beyond a reasonable doubt?

Question

Police claim they have found significant quantities of drugs on a black defendant. He claims He has been framed. He does not know where the drugs came from. At trial, it comes out that he has a history of possession. The defendant's lawyer states that there is no evidence linking him to the drugs and that the police are using him as a scapegoat.

As a jury member, would you say the Police have reasonable grounds for believing he is guilty or are they jumping the gun?

This is not a real case. Let us say that these drugs were found at his residence. He does not know how the drugs got there but since his last trial, he has attended drugs rehab regularly.

Answer 1

First the police don't have to have reasonable grounds or reasonable doubt, the police only need probable cause.

Next possession of the drug does not require a court to prove how they got them, merely being in possession of them is all that is needed. You do not have to prove who he got them from, how they got there, not needed.

The only link one has to have with the drugs, is that they were on the property in control of the defendent.

Seldon in real life do police know where the drugs in a drug raid came from, only that they are there.

Answer 2

I have done jury service 3 times (very weird, I know- what are the chances - I'm only 35 now...!) and can say that as my experience of the system increases, the more likely I am to convict someone like this.

The way I understand it, the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt - not 100%, and the UK legal system has recently been changed (again, as I understand it) to allow previous convictions to be brought up in some circumstances where it's relevant.

I don't think the colour is relevant, but if I was on a jury and was told the defendant had previous that were this similar to the current court case, I would find it very hard to give them the benefit of the doubt, and would probably vote to convict.

However, given that most people on juries seem to find it hard to believe the nasty things that are said about people (believe me, it's true) the likelihood is that a couple of people will want to let him off as he looks like a decent bloke, and they'll either have to go to a majority verdict or it'll be a mistrial.

This is a massive waste of court time & taxpayers money as the whole thing will then have to be done all over again.

It's now my opinion that the burden of proof on the prosecution is so high that the majority of defendants are probably guilty. Of course this doesn't mean there aren't horribly unfair verdicts and plenty of innocent people there too, but I'm just saying what I have been saddened to feel after seeing what I thought to be very good proof refuted and guilty defendants let free due to bad processes or juries who fail to believe bad about people when it's staring them in the face.

Sad but true.

Answer 3

Prior convictions could, and probably would come into evidence either for impeachment or as "similar transaction evidence" depending on the State in question.

It is surprising how many people think the defendant should have to show evidence to the contrary. The defendant is presumed innocent and never has to present any evidence. The State must prove the charges occured.

My own opinion: If just in the area of the drugs or same room or something, I wouldn't convict unless the State showed some connection between the defendant and the drugs. If they were in his pocket, I would.

Answer 4

IF they were found on him, he probably knew they were there and therefore can be done for possession. If he had them and beyond REASONABLE doubt didn't know he had them, then it can't really be possession. Say, if he had borrowed a friend's jacket, the drugs were in that, he had only had it on five minutes and hadn't checked the pockets. Not likely though.

If this is a real jury case, you are breaking the law if you discuss it with anyone who is not on the jury, and all jurors must be present.

Answer 5

The jury don't get told about a defendants past convictions. Its suppossed to be unfair telling them of that because it means that theyll judge on past convictions rather than the merits of the case. So that wouldnt 'come out' at trial. I'm fairly sure that possession is a strict liability crime. Meaning that it doesnt matter that you knew you were carrying the substance, or that you knew what the substance was. What matters is that you were carrying it.

Answer 6

If the police found the drugs on him upon arrest or detained him for their security and safety which needed a frisk or search, then no, the police have done nothing wrong. If they just came up to the guy and told him to empty his pockets then that is wrong and needds further investigation. Now, if he is on probation and his probation officer has had trouble loacating him, he could have told the police to find him and search him for drugs, which again is wrong..

Answer 7

Well, the police claim they found the drugs on him. Does he have any evidence to suggest that he was in fact framed? Saying "I didn't do it" is not much of a defence...I'd need more information to make a certain decision.

Answer 8

To the exclusion of all ethical and lifelike doubt. interior the justice equipment there are 3 stages of evidence: a million. Preponderance of the information (50% or extra) 2. clean and Convincing information (an enhanced familiar, like ninety 5% particular); and 3. previous and to the exclusion of all ethical doubt; previous the shadow of a doubt. Like one hundred% particular. The criminal Justice equipment makes use of the utmost familiar so as that purely the accountable would desire to be punished, and to attempt and sidestep convicting the harmless.

Answer 9

The fact that he has a history of drug possession would not leave most jurors inclined to believe him. I would say the Police had good reason to charge him.

Answer 10

I would have to say that there is no reasonable doubt and would vote to convict. He has not offered any evidence to the contrary. Had he presented documentation of one or more of the individual officers doing such things previously (complaints, IAB investigations, etc.) then I might find a reasonable doubt.