Part I.
In a criminal trial the jury must find a defendant “guiltybeyond a reasonable doubt.”
1) What is the burden of proof in a civil trial, like atort action for damages?
2) What does beyond a reasonable doubt mean to you, andwhat are some of the issues with that standard raised by the authors of yourbook?
3) What does this standard do to the evidentiaryrequirements to obtain a guilty verdict in a criminal trial?
4) Do you think it is harder now to meet that standardwithout scientific evidence, rather than merely testimony and/or other realevidence? Why or why not?
5) Whatever your conclusion in question 4, in your view isthat a good thing, or a bad thing, and why?
Part II.
1) Define and explain the exclusionary rule; (a) what isit, (b) what is its purpose, and (c) why is it important to evidence law?
2) What is the case that applied the exclusionary rule to thestates as well as the federal government, and WHY did the Supreme Court dothat?
3) (a) What are some possible alternatives to the exclusionaryrule to help accomplish its purpose? (b) How effective would they be inyour opinion, and why?
4) What are two of the exceptions to the exclusionary rulelisted in your book, and what are some examples of those?
5) In terms of the purpose of the exclusionary rule, do theseexceptions make sense, and why or why not?
6) The exclusionary rule is controversial because criminalevidence is sometimes excluded (suppressed) from trials, which may lead to adefendant going free. What are your thoughts on this potentialoutcome?