The Compensation of the Victims of Criminal Acts - Research Paper Example

Misdemeanors are petty crimes and felonies are crimes of a more serious nature like the murder in question.

3. The litigants in this case were the people or rather the state against the accused person who in this case is Michael Seaton. When it comes to criminal cases, any offender, the person who commits the crime that is, is considered to have harmed not only the victims of his offense but the entire population of that state through his actions. This explains why criminal cases do not depend on the victims or complainants to bring the case to court for the trial to begin. However, this is not to say that the victims/complainants are of no importance to these trials because they are, through their testimonies in court. The court prosecutors are charged with the duty of defending the interests of the people/state in criminal cases. The court prosecutors initiate the criminal proceeding, but they need the complainant's help to give evidence of the accused person's guilt. No court will convict a man without evidence of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, Britni Glover, the little boy’s mother was one of the witnesses testifying against Michael to prove his guilt.

4. In all criminal cases, the burden of proof is the task of the prosecution. The term burden of proof simply means the duty or liability of a party to prove their claim or allegation against another party. An accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty. On one hand, since the prosecution - representing the public - brought the case to court they have to be the ones to prove Michael’s guilt. This is where victims of crime or rather complainants in other words like Britni Glover come in to help the prosecution prove his guilt. On the other hand, Michael’s duty was to prove his innocence if he felt the need to. This was optional for him since he could have chosen to let the case take its cause.

5. With criminal cases if the prosecution, bearing the burden of proof manages to prove to a court of law beyond reasonable doubt that the allegations against the accused person are true then they meet the legal standard. The standard is to determine if the burden of proof has been achieved - this is the only threshold. This is when the prosecution brings evidence to court to prove the accused person's guilt. Evidence in the form of witnesses like complainants or expert witnesses like forensic scientists, documents like doctors' reports, murder weapons, etc.
6. According to Walkup, Melodia, Kelly, and Schoenberger, this case would be tried in a Texas court. This is major because of jurisdiction; this court is charged with jurisdiction over criminal cases, probate, tort, etc. Unlike federal courts whose jurisdiction in general touches on the constitutionality of laws, treaties of the U.S., state disputes, bankruptcy, etc.
7. A criminal court had to have conducted the matter seeing that the issue in question was criminal.

8. The judge of the court was chosen through state-wide elections into an office whose term expires at the end of every six years.
9. The offence in this case qualifies as capital murder (Penal Code Sec, 19.03). The Penal Code outlines the offences, which qualify as capital murder. It provides that ‘If the person murders an individual less than six years’, it’s a capital murder (No. 8). The boy, Michael, murdered was 4 years old.
10. For an initial appeal after conviction, Seaton would take the suit to the Texas Criminal Appeal Court.
11. In a criminal case like this one for instance, such an appeal would be accorded based on a dissent on issues or application of the law, facts of the case, or procedural errors.

12. The Texas Supreme Court would be the less likely court to hear this appeal. This is because its jurisdiction only extends to civil appeals and not criminal appeals like this case.
13. Yes, the prosecution can appeal against Michael’s acquittal but only under exceptional circumstances. For instance, if it feels the lower court’s decision is unconstitutional or discovers new evidence, it could shed light on the case. In addition, the prosecution can appeal if the evidence that could help their case at the subordinate court was concealed, or if the jury was tampered with on a jury-decided case, etc. Read More