Flashcards Studio

Ramos is charged with homicide after a late-night convenience store robbery. Investigators recover a shell casing at the scene that bears a partial fingerprint matching Ramos. A bystander testifies she saw a man wearing a blue jacket flee through a back alley shortly after the shot. Ramos testifies that he was at a temple fundraiser from 7:30 to 9:15 p.m.; the fundraiser keeps an attendance book and has volunteer rosters that corroborate his presence, but municipal surveillance footage is inconclusive. The prosecution relies on (i) the shell casing fingerprint as a direct link to Ramos, (ii) the eyewitness account of a man in a blue jacket fleeing the scene, and (iii) the alibi corroborated by the fundraiser records. (a) Identify the controlling standard of proof in criminal cases and who bears the burden of proof. (b) Apply the facts to determine whether the prosecution has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; discuss how each piece of evidence bears on or against reasonable doubt and whether the combination yields a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (c) If the evidence is challenged as susceptible to reasonable alternatives (e.g., fingerprint contamination, misidentification, alibi doubt), explain what additional showing would be needed for the prosecution to prevail beyond reasonable doubt and what evidence or corroboration would reasonably cure doubt.