|
18 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
Can somebody explain me difference between proof and evidence in the legal english? As i understand it, proof has more abstract meaning, while evidence is more practical.
Re: proof and evidence
It is not really a difference of abstract versus practical. Evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt. Sometimes more than one evidence can add up to proof.
Fingerprints are proof that a person touched something. If I find your jacket in my car, it is evidence that you were there, but not proof. If the police find lots of money in my house, it might be evidence that I robbed a bank. A videotape showing me at the bank holding the gun would prove that I robbed a bank.
Be wary of lax standards for proof. We all want to know things absolutely, which causes us to tend to misinterpret mere evidence as proof.
Proof comes from a premise or premisses and an argument. For instance:
(1) All cats have fur.
(2) Fluffy is a cat.
(3) If Fluffy is a cat, then Fluffy has fur.
(1) and (2) are premisses. (3) is an argument. If the premisses are true and the argument is reasonable, we have proof that Fluffy has fur.
The problem usually is trying to establish that your premisses are true. Events occur in time. To actually say that an event happened requires evidence of its occurance. Evidence can be eyewitness accounts and the current effects of the event’s occurance. For instance we may have:
(A) A live, furless cat with a collar bearing the name tag “Fluffy.”
(B) a pile of white curly hair near the cat.
(C) a hair clipper.
(D) a 10 year old boy with bleeding scratches all over his forearms. He denies having shaved the fur off the cat.
(E) a 7 year old girl who claims to have seen the boy shaving the fur off the the cat.
We might:
(F) finger print the boy. We lift finger prints off of the clipper. They match.
(G) call in a veterinarian. She says the scratches on the boy’s are are consistant with the scratches that the cat could have made.
(H) test the blood on the cat’s claws. The DNA of the blood on the cat’s claws matches the boy’s DNA.
(I) test the DNA of Cat. The DNA of the pile of curly hair on the floor matches the cat’s DNA.
Items (A) through (I) are evidence. But until someone puts together a logical, inductive argument using the evidence as premisses, there’s no proof that Fluffy ever had any fur or that the boy shaved it off.
| Category: Law FAQ's | Tag: abstract meaning, Al Mollo Esq., evidence, Mollo Law Firm, practical, Proof |
|
15 Jul
|
Posted by Mollo Law Firm
|
A case of suspected homicide: A woman is missing. Her husband’s alibi for the time his wife disappeared can’t be corroborated. He admits having a girlfriend. A neighbor calls police to report recent digging in the backyard. When police arrive, the husband is packed and ready to go.
Do police have probable cause to arrest him or to obtain a warrant to search the home?
Probable cause is a reasonable belief, based on facts, that evidence of a particular crime will be found in a particular place to be searched, or that a particular person is responsible for a particular crime — in this case, homicide. “Mere suspicion” is not enough.
The husband’s behavior is merely suspicious. That his alibi can’t be confirmed and that he is involved with another woman do not establish reasonable factual grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or to link him to it. But the third factor — the backyard digging — is sufficient grounds to get a warrant to search the yard. When the yard is dug up and the missing woman’s body or clothing is found, the hole is evidence of a crime, linked to the husband, and establishes probable cause for his arrest.
If — before the yard was excavated — the neighbor claimed that the day the wife disappeared, she saw the husband carrying a shovel to the backyard, visibility was good, and she sees reasonably well, then the facts show: 1) evidence linking the digging to a crime, and 2) evidence linking the husband to the digging and the crime. Probable cause to search and to arrest would exist even before the yard was excavated. If she’d seen him struggle with the weight of a large bundle or her dog dragged home a scarf belonging to the victim, the showing of probable cause would be even stronger.
The case of the suspected drug dealer: Police go to Bateman’s apartment to question him about a suspected drug deal. When the door opens, they see Bateman drop a marijuana pipe. While standing with him in the doorway, officers see other drug paraphernalia in the living room. An officer detects a strong odor of smoke. Officers ask if anyone else is in the apartment; Bateman says he doesn’t think so. Officers then hear a voice in the kitchen. An officer walks into the kitchen, finds it covered in smoke and soot, and sees a man he recognizes as a convicted drug dealer with an outstanding arrest warrant. After officers enter the apartment, they see a tobacco tin filled with what appears to be marijuana on the living room table.
Do officers have probable cause for a warrant to search the apartment for drugs? Yes. They saw a pipe and other paraphernalia. They smelled, then saw, evidence of cooking but no food, with a known drug dealer in the kitchen. These facts establish a reasonable belief that evidence of drug dealing will be found in the apartment.
Do officers have probable cause to arrest Bateman on the spot? Yes, for possession of marijuana. If possession of drug paraphernalia is illegal in that state, he can be arrested on that charge as well.
A search warrant was obtained and a meth lab found in a closet off the kitchen. Only then did officers have probable cause to arrest Batement for illegal manufacture of drugs.
(Facts adapted from State v. Bateman, 2004 MT 281, 323 Mont. 280, 99 P.3d 656.)
| Category: Law FAQ's | Tag: based on facts, crime, defendants rights, evidence, particular crime, probable cause, reasonable belief |
