《法学研究方法的作业》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《法学研究方法的作业（31页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、 The Forgotten Dinner Guest: The "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" Standard in a Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal in a Federal Bench Trial Jared Kneitelt Abstract In comparison to civil trials, criminal trials are decided on more stringentstandardsofproof However, motionsforjudgmentofacquittal
2、 in criminal non-jury trials are currently decided on a mere legal sufficiency standard as opposed to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. This Article examines the lack ofreasoning and uniformity in deciding these motions as well as the potential dangers and injustices posed to a def
3、endant by applying a lower standard. Through an examination of both domestic andforeign law, the author argues for the application ofthe "beyond a reasonable doubt "standard when determining motions for judgment of acquittal in criminal non-jury trials. Welcome to the Dinner Party: Introdu
4、ction The standard for judging a civil trial is lower than the standard for judging guilt in a criminal trial, and there is no jury in a non-jury trial. Somehow-despite these two very obvious conclusions-the nineteenth century standard for determining a motion for a directed verdict in a civil jury
5、trial is still applied to our modem motion for a judgment of acquittal in a criminal non-jury trial. In a criminal trial, at the close of the governments case-in-chief, the defense may make a motion for a judgment of acquittal on one or more offenses charged. If the motion is unsuccessful and the de
6、fense calls a case, the defense may make another motion for ajudgment of acquittal at the close of its case.This Article concerns only the motion at the end of the governments case. At present, the motion will succeed only if the government has not presented legally sufficient evidence of all the el
7、ements of the particular offense or offenses. This Article discusses why, in a non-jury trial, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard should be applied-instead of merely the legal sufficiency standard-when the bench considers a motion for ajudgment of acquittal. Not knowing whether the g
8、overnment has proven-in the judges mind-the defendants guilt before inviting the defendant to call a case actually militates against the presumption of innocence, the assurance that the government discharges its burden, and the defendants right to remain silent. This Article shows that the jurisprud
9、ence in the United States improperly cites, for the standard for determining whether to grant or deny a motion for a judgment of acquittal in a non-jury trial, either the standard in a jury trial or the standard for appellate review. This Article examines the historical (lack of) development of the
10、motion for a judgment of acquittal and the perceived constitutional preclusion against the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Namely, the bench-as the arbiter of law-cannot usurp a defendants Sixth Amendment protection to be tried on the facts by a jury of his peers. Of course, in a non-jury trial, the bench is both the
