Back to Questions
Want to know:
to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt "every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged
Get a detailed, AI-powered explanation for this question and thousands more on StudyFetch.
Get the Answer for FreeHow StudyFetch Helps You Master This Topic
AI-Powered Answers
Get instant, detailed explanations powered by AI that understands your course material.
Deep Understanding
Go beyond surface-level answers with step-by-step breakdowns and examples.
Personalized Learning
Sparky adapts to your learning style and helps you connect ideas.
Practice & Test
Turn any question into flashcards, quizzes, and practice tests to solidify your knowledge.
Explore More Questions
- Crim- Types of Seizuresc. Arrests There must be _________________________________ to believe that the arrested individual has committed a crime. Can be with or without an arrest ________________________ Pretext arrest: As long as the police have probable cause to believe an individual committed a crime, it is irrelevant whether the officer stopped that person for the crime for which there is probable cause or some other crime.Note 1: Pretext arrests are fine under the Fourth Amendment. However, there may be an Equal Protection issue if the officers choose who to stop based on race or other discriminatory criteria.
- exceptions to the warrant requirement- consent o Third Parties:Example 15: You give your bags to a friend and say, "Please hold my knapsack while I run into the library for a second." A police officer approaches your friend and asks to look in the knapsack. If your friend agrees, the officer need not obtain your consent to search the knapsack because the friend had _______________ over the property. Officers cannot search over the objection of a present occupant. Officers can search if the suspect is not present and the other occupant consents.
- In countries with trials by jury, some prosecutors worry that people who watch crime dramas on television will have unrealistic expectations of what forensic science can achieve. This so-called "CSI effect" might lead them to find defendants "not guilty" if they aren't presented with razor-sharp fingerprints, perfect DNA matches, and other feats of forensic wizardry—but these are far harder to obtain in the real world than on Netflix or the BBC. Then, when forensic evidence is presented at trial, they might overestimate its importance—discounting other evidence, such as eyewitness testimony or a robust alibi, that could exonerate the accused. Discuss with your team: should juries in criminal trials exclude people who watch too much crime-related television? Is this a real problem, and, if so, might it also affect judges, journalists, and political leaders?