Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases: Evidential and Legal Burden Explained

1- a) As per the law, the parties who claims a fact in the court must prove it. This theory
is called the burden of proof1. But this is not in the case. In Criminal cases, the golden
thread is that when the prosecution is worry to show evidence of a crime. Therefore, it
can be stated that suspect is recognised acquitted till he proves as guilty.
The burden of proof can be divided into an evidential burden and legal problem. Thus,
evidential load means, the duty to adduce proofs which are properly analysed an issue
during a trail where the Jury or Judge can permit to proceed with the case. This is in the
first stage of hearing the case2.
On the other side, during a trial, when the evidential load is fails which means issue is not
accepted in court to proceed further. If the prosecution cannot increase a prima facie case,
the defendant will prosper.
It is also analysed that evidential problem is not consider as a burden. This is all about to
increase an issue in the court to fit for consideration by the court. Further, winning the
evidential burden does not mean, the prosecution won the case. The prosecution has to
discharge the legal burden too.
The legal burdens mean once the prosecution proved evidential burden and the court
decides that there must be a case which has to be solve, the prosecutor must prove all
legally required elements of an alleged offense3. The prosecution has to release a party
from all legal terms and procedure
The defendant bears the legal burden in some instances too, such as, when proving
insanity or where an express or implied the provision which is related to statutory places
where legal problem is prove to be issue for the protectors.
The party bears the legal burden, bears the obligation to prove the evidential burden too.
But, this is not always. It is also stated that when common law disproves the legal burden
defences falls on the prosecution, the defendant must prove the evidential burden. For
instance, if the accused wants to prove an alibi in self-defense, the evidential falls on him.
Even though, both the prosecution and the accused need to discharge legal and evidential
burdens, the required standard of burdens differ for each.
There is no required standard of proof in evidential burden for both the prosecution and
accused. If prosecution or accused made the jury what they said is most likely true, then
they discharged their burden in proving evidential burden4.
1 Stolzenberg, S.N. and et.al., 2020. The prevalence of declarative and indirect yes/no
Questions when children testify in criminal cases of child sexual abuse in the United
States. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 34(1). pp.194-204.
2 Griffin, L., 2020. Reasons to Doubt: Wrongful Convictions and the Criminal Cases
Review Commission, by Carolyn Hoyle and Mai Sato.
3 Pennington, L., 2020. Using Qualitative Analysis to Add Depth to Scaled Responses in
Surveys of Jurors’ Trust in Legal Authorities in Criminal Cases.
4 Cass, R.A. and et.l., 2020. Administrative law: cases and materials. Aspen Publishers.
Page 1 of 8

With regards to the standard of evidence in the legal burden for examination is away
from any logical doubts. If the prosecution raised any matter in the court, he must show
that the suspect has devoted the particular crime beyond a reasonable doubt5.
Beyond reasonable doubt means, the suit has to show the panel that the accused is guilty
so that there is no sensible reason why the accused is not guilty. Or, the jury must be sure
about the commission of offense without any doubt left.
Whereas the defendant wants to release the legal burden, the standard of evidence is on
the balance of probabilities. This is the civil standard of proof.
5 Cui, Y., 2020. AI Assistive System for Criminal Cases in Shanghai. In Artificial
Intelligence and Judicial Modernization (pp. 43-48). Springer, Singapore.
Page 2 of 8

1. (b) As explained above, the prosecution has the duty of proving that Gill and Jaako
have murdered Clark. Until proved guilty, both are considered innocent. As explained
clearly that, the prosecution has two duties, the duty of discharging evidential burden and
duty of discharging legal burden.
The evidential burden is to make the jury believe that the accused has killed Clark. The
responsibility of prosecution is to prove two things when discharging an evidential
burden. The first that the prosecution must prove Clark has been murdered and the
second is that he has been killed by Gill and Jaako6.
If the jury, in this case, believes that Gill and Jaako have killed Clark and allows the case
to go to the next step, the prosecution has won discharging the evidential. That is the end
of the first step.
The second stage is discharging the legal burden. The suit has to show legally, that the
suspect, Gill and Jaako, had actus rea and mens rea to kill Clark, beyond reasonable
doubts. To prove actus rea, the prosecution must prove that the killing was unlawful and
he has not been killed in self-defense and the act of Gill and Jaako is the legal cause of
the murder of Clark. To prove mens rea, the prosecution must show evidence that suspect
had direct or oblique intention to kill Clark.
If the prosecution makes the jury to convict Gill and Jaako, that means, the legal burden
has been discharged beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
Gill, one of the defendant claims self-defense and diminished responsibility as defenses
from convictions.
Self-defence, which is one of Common Law defenses, the accused/perpetrator bears
evidential problem only7. At the same time, the duty of the legal burden of disproving it
falls on the prosecution. If Gill or her solicitor makes the Jury to believe that there is a
possibility of self-defense, that means, the defendant has discharged the legal burden.
The trial must disprove the claims of the offender and prove that the defendant has no
right to act as a self- defence or if he was so acting, the force used was excessive beyond
a reasonable doubt.
The defense of diminished responsibility is an expressed statutory provision. Section 2 of
the Homicide Act 1957 states about this defence. Since Gill, the defendant has used this
section as a defense. Gill or her solicitor has the lawful load to demonstrate that Gill was
6 Rahim, M. A., 2020. An Analysis on Incorporating the Alternative Dispute Resolution
in Criminal Cases in Bangladesh: Challenges and Recommendations. National Journal of
Criminal Law. 2(2).
7 Ambagtsheer, F., 2020. Combating Human Trafficking for the Purpose of Organ
Removal: Lessons Learned from Prosecuting Criminal Cases. The Palgrave International
Handbook of Human Trafficking, pp.1733-1749.
Page 3 of 8