Karin bought illegal firearms at a gun show. At her trial, she alleged that she had committed this crime because her boyfriend had threatened to harm her and her two daughters if she did not. Her lawyer asked the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karin had acted freely. Instead, the judge told the jury that Karin had the burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. Who is correct?

Question

Law

Giancarlo Hurst

23 April, 23:18

Karin bought illegal firearms at a gun show. At her trial, she alleged that she had committed this crime because her boyfriend had threatened to harm her and her two daughters if she did not. Her lawyer asked the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karin had acted freely. Instead, the judge told the jury that Karin had the burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. Who is correct?

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Douglas Dudley · Answer 1

The judge is correct.

Explanation:

Burden of proof is a tool and a term used in law used to define who is the person responsible for supporting a statement or concept. The term specifies that the person responsible for a particular claim is also the one who must offer the evidence necessary to support it.

Karin, who is claiming she is innocent of the crime she committed because she was acting under duress, but she has not provided any proof of it, so the judge of the case acted correctly in asking burden of proof to Karin, so she could prove her innocence.