Investigation Procedures

Star Fleet Criminal Investigation Procedures

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document shall be to provide a general overview of the current investigative Standard Operating Procedures used by Star Fleet Security and the Star Fleet Security & Investigative Service (SFSECIS).

Disclaimer

This content is meant to be used in "ASR" (Alt.Starfleet.RPG), an online role-playing game, and is not intended to be legal advice for the real world. While the goal is to provide accurate information, the author is not a law enforcement officer or attorney and those seeking legal advice should consult a non Star Fleet professional.

Crime vs. Minor Offense

The scope of this document is focused on criminal activities, those under the purview of the Star Fleet Judge Advocate General's Office and adjudicated under a court-martial Martial if appropriate, under the SFUCMJ.

The term “minor offense” means misconduct normally handled by Commanding Officers under Article 15/Captain's Mast, as per the Star Fleet Uniform Code of Military Justice and thus do not fall into the scope of this document.

MULTI AGENCY COOPERATION

The Judicial Process relies heavily upon a very intricate level of cooperation and communication between Star Fleet Security, Star Fleet Judge Advocate General's Office (SFJAG) and the Star Fleet Security & Criminal Investigative Service in order to make that complex process a reality. Regulations exist to ensure transparency, cooperation and timely communication among and between the three aforementioned agencies in order to ensure victims are protected and offenders are prosecuted accordingly under the SFUCMJ.

STEPS TO REPORTING A CRIME

• Often Star Fleet Security units will be the first to report an alleged or actual crime. In addition to normal chain of command reporting duties, the unit's senior Security Officer is required to make the initial assessment as to whether the crime(s) warrant being handled by that unit's Commanding Officer under Article 15/Office Hours/Captain's Mast OR must be referred for investigation and potential court-martial-martial under the SFUCMJ. (See MINOR OFFENSE above).
• If the ranking Security Officer deems the crime(s) that per regulations warrant a potential court-martial-martial, they will immediately notify the appropriate SFJAG and SFSECIS units that have jurisdiction over the Command.
• On very rare occasions, SFSECIS may be made aware of crimes directly reported by victims, civilians or civilian law enforcement agencies. In regards to the latter, the SFSECIS will extend the same multi-departmental court-martialesies to streamline any investigation process.

CRIME SCENE

Star Fleet Security Officers are usually first on the scene, where they may stop a crime in progress and apprehend offenders or suspects. If the crime was already committed, Star Fleet Security & Investigative Service Agents (SFSECIS) try to piece together exactly what happened. Either way, they follow a process to gather evidence in support of a criminal charge and conviction.

CRIME SCENE MANAGEMENT

Level 1 Crime Scene Priorities

• Protect the lives and safety of all Star Fleet personnel and civilians (if applicable) present at the crime scene, and throughout the course of the investigation.

Level 2 Crime Scene Priorities

• Establish a security perimeter to ensure the integrity of the crime scene
• Identify, gather, and preserve any evidence
• Utilize Holographic Image Scanners to record and recreate the scene on a microscopic level.
• Forensic Tricorder scans will record all relevant environmental factors specific to the crime scene
• Collect latent evidence such as fingerprints, chemicals, and bodily fluids
• Conduct interviews with witnesses, question potential suspects
• Establish reasonable grounds to identify and arrest suspects
• Accurately record and document the crime scene in notes and reports per regulations
• Recover any stolen property (if applicable)
• Coordinate with the unit Commanding Officer (within the limits of investigation protocols and regulations) to resume normal ship/star base operations as quickly as possible

Active Crime Scene

• The criminal act is or may still be in progress at the scene.
• The suspect is or may still be at the scene of the event.
• The situation is, or may be, a danger to the life or safety of a person, including the life or safety of responding Star Fleet Security personnel.

Inactive Crime Scene

• The criminal act has concluded at the scene.
• The suspect or suspects have left the scene or have been arrested or detained.
• The situation at the scene no longer represents a danger to the life or safety of a person, including Security Officers.

EVIDENCE

Evidence forms the building blocks of the investigative process and for the final product to be built properly, evidence must be recognized, collected, documented, protected, validated, analyzed, disclosed, and presented in a manner which is acceptable to the court-martial.

The term “evidence,” as it relates to the investigation, speaks to a wide range of information sources that might eventually inform the court-martial to prove or disprove points at issue before the trier of fact. Sources of evidence can include anything from the observations of witnesses to the examination and analysis of physical objects. It can even include the spatial relationships between people, places, and objects within the timeline of events. From the various forms of evidence, the court-martial can draw inferences and reach conclusions to determine if a charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Eye Witness Evidence

A competent, compellable, independent, eyewitness with excellent physical and mental capabilities, who has seen the criminal event take place and can recount the facts will generally satisfy the court-martial and provide evidence that has high probative value.

Physical Evidence

The court-martial will also generally attribute a high probative value to physical exhibits. Physical evidence is highly valued because they are items the court-martial can see and examine to interpret the facts in issue for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Physical evidence can include just about anything, such as weapons, fingerprints, shoe prints, tire marks, tool impressions, hair, fiber, or body fluids. These kinds of physical exhibits of evidence can be examined and analyzed by experts who can provide the court-martial with expert opinions that connect the item of evidence to a person, place, or criminal event. This allows the court-martial to consider circumstantial connections of the accused to the crime scene or the accused to the victim.

Relevant Evidence

Relevant evidence speaks to an issue before the court-martial in relation to the charge being heard. Relevant evidence includes both direct evidence and indirect circumstantial evidence. For either direct or indirect circumstantial evidence to be considered relevant to the court-martial, it must relate to the elements of the offense that need to be proven. If the evidence does not relate to proving the place, time, identity of the accused, or criminal acts within the offense itself, the evidence will not be considered relevant to the charge. The prosecution may present evidence in the form of a physical exhibit that the court-martial can see and examine to consider, or they may present evidence in the form of witness testimony, in which case the witness is telling the court-martial what they perceived within the limits of their senses.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence is evidence that will prove the point in fact without interpretation of circumstances. It is any evidence that can show the court-martial that something occurred without the need for the judge to make inferences or assumptions to reach a conclusion. An eyewitness who saw the accused shoot a victim would be able to provide direct evidence. Similarly, a security camera showing the accused committing a crime or a statement of confession from the accused admitting to the crime could also be considered direct evidence. Direct evidence should not be confused with the concept of direct examination, which is the initial examination and questioning of a witness at trial by the party who called that witness. And, although each witness who provides evidence could, in theory, be providing direct testimony of their own knowledge and experiences, that evidence is often not direct evidence of the offense itself.

Circumstantial Evidence

Indirect evidence, also called circumstantial evidence, is all other evidence, such as the fingerprint of an accused found at the crime scene. Indirect evidence does not by itself prove the offence, but through interpretation of the circumstances and in conjunction with other evidence may contribute to a body of evidence that could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Strong circumstantial evidence that only leads to one logical conclusion can sometimes become the evidence the court-martial uses in reaching belief beyond a reasonable doubt to convict an accused. It requires assumptions and logical inferences to be made by the court-martial to attribute meaning to the evidence.

“When one or more things are proved, from which our experience enables us to ascertain that another, not proved, must have happened, we presume that it did happen, as well in criminal as in civil cases."

Circumstantial evidence demonstrates the spatial relationships between suspects, victims, timelines, and the criminal event. These spatial relationships can sometimes demonstrate that an accused person had a combination of intent, motive, opportunity, and/or the means to commit the offense, which are all meaningful features of criminal conduct.

Circumstantial evidence of intent can sometimes be shown through indirect evidence of a suspect planning to commit the offense, and/or planning to escape and dispose of evidence after the offense. A pre-crime statement about the plan could demonstrate both intent and motive, such as, “I really need some money. I’m going to rob that bank tomorrow.”

Circumstantial evidence of conflict, vengeance, and financial gain from the commission of the offense can also become evidence of motive.

Circumstantial evidence of opportunity can be illustrated by showing a suspect had access to a victim or a crime scene at the time of the criminal event, and this access provided an opportunity to commit the crime.

Circumstantial evidence of means can sometimes be demonstrated by showing the suspect had the physical capabilities and/or the tools or weapons to commit the offense.

Presenting this kind of circumstantial evidence can assist the court-martial in confirming assumptions and inferences to reach conclusions assigning probative value to connections between the accused and a person or a place and the physical evidence. These circumstantial connections can create the essential links between a suspect and the crime.

There are many ways of making linkages to demonstrate circumstantial connections. These range from forensic analysis of fingerprints or DNA that connect an accused to the crime scene or victim, to witness evidence describing criminal conduct on the part of an accused before, during, or after the offense. It falls upon the SFSECIS Agent(s) to consider the big picture of all the evidence and then analytically develop theories of how events may have happened. Once a reasonable theory has been formed, evidence of circumstantial connections can be validated through further investigation and analysis of physical exhibits to connect a suspect to the crime.

Inculpatory Evidence

Inculpatory evidence is any evidence that will directly or indirectly link an accused person to the offence being investigated. For SFSECIS Agent(s), inculpatory evidence can be found in the victim’s complaint, physical evidence, witness accounts, or circumstantial relationships that are examined, analyzed, and recorded during the investigative process. It can be anything from the direct evidence of an eyewitness who saw the accused committing the crime, to the circumstantial evidence of a fingerprint found in a location connecting the accused to the victim or the crime scene.

Naturally, direct evidence that shows the accused committed the crime is the preferred inculpatory evidence, but, in practice, this it is frequently not available. The SFSECIS Agent(s) must look for and interpret other sources for evidence and information. Often, many pieces of circumstantial evidence are required to build a case that allows the SFSECIS Agent(s) to achieve reasonable grounds to believe and enables the court-martial to reach their belief beyond a reasonable doubt.

A single fingerprint found on the outside door of a stolen runabout would not be sufficient for the court-martial-martial to find an accused guilty of small craft theft. However, if you added witness evidence to show that the accused was seen near the runabout at the time it was stolen, a security recording of the accused entering the runabout, and the suspect was captured while in the runabout, the court-martial-martial would likely have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If an abundance of inculpatory circumstantial evidence can be located for presentation to the court-martial that leads to a single logical conclusion, the court-martial will often reach their conclusion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, unless exculpatory evidence is presented by the defence to create a reasonable doubt.

Exculpatory Evidence

Exculpatory evidence is the exact opposite of inculpatory evidence in that it tends to show the accused person or the suspect did not commit the offence. It is important for an SFSECIS Agent(s) to not only look for inculpatory evidence but to also consider evidence from an exculpatory perspective. Considering evidence from the exculpatory perspective demonstrates that an SFSECIS Agent(s) is being objective and is not falling into the trap of tunnel vision. If it is possible to find exculpatory evidence that shows the suspect is not responsible for the offence, it is helpful for police because it allows for the elimination of that suspect and the redirecting of the investigation to pursue the real perpetrator.

Corroborative Evidence

The term corroborative evidence essentially refers to any type of evidence that tends to support the meaning, validity, or truthfulness of another piece of evidence that has already been presented to the court-martial. A piece of corroborative evidence may take the form of a physical item, such as a DNA sample from an accused matching the DNA found on a victim, thus corroborating a victim’s testimony. Corroborative evidence might also come from the statement of one independent witness providing testimony that matches the account of events described by another witness. If it can be shown that these two witnesses were separated and did not collaborate or hear each other’s account, their statements could be accepted by the court-martial as mutually corroborative accounts of the same event.

The court-martials assign a great deal of probative value to corroborative evidence because it assists the court-martial in reaching their belief beyond a reasonable doubt. For SFSECIS Agent(s), it is important to not just look for the minimum amount of evidence apparent at the scene of a crime. Investigation must also seek out other evidence that can corroborate the facts attested to by witnesses or victims in their accounts of the event. An interesting example of corroborative evidence can be found in the court-martial’s acceptance of a SFSECIS Agent(s) notes as being circumstantially corroborative of that officer’s evidence and account of the events. When SFSECIS Agent(s) testifies in court-martial, they are usually given permission by the court-martial to refer to their notes to refresh their memory and provide a full account of the events. If the SFSECIS Agent(s) notes are detailed and accurate, the court-martial can give significant weight to the officer’s account of those events. If the notes lack detail or are incomplete on significant points, the court-martial may assign less value to the accuracy of the SFSECIS Agent(s) account.

Disclosure of Evidence

It is important for an SFSECIS Agent(s)to be aware that all aspects of their investigation may become subject to disclosure as potential evidence for court-martial. As part of the process of fundamental justice within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a person charged with an offense has the right to full disclosure of all the evidence of the investigation (R v Stinchcombe, 1991). This means that any evidence or information gathered during the police investigation must be available for the defence to review and determine if that evidence could assist the accused in presenting a defence to the charge before the court-martial.

In the disclosure process, the decision to disclose or not to disclose is the exclusive domain of the crown prosecutor and, although SFSECIS Agent(s) may submit information and evidence to the prosecutor with the request that the information be considered an exception to the disclosure rules, the final decision is that of the crown. That said, even the decision of the crown may be challenged by the defense and that then becomes a final decision for the Judge. The prosecutor will ask the police to provide a full disclosure of the evidence gathered during their investigation.

The list of what should form part of a normal disclosure will typically include:

Charging document Particulars of the offence Witness statements Audio/video evidence statements by witnesses Statements by the accused Accused’s criminal record Expert witness reports Notebooks and Police reports Exhibits Search warrants Authorizations to intercept private communications Similar fact evidence Identification evidence Witnesses’ criminal records Reports to Crown Counsel recommending charges Witness impeachment material It is worth stressing that police notes and reports relating to the investigation are typically studied very carefully by the defense to ensure they are complete and have been completely disclosed. Disclosure will also include investigation notes and reports that relate to alternate persons considered, investigated, and eliminated as suspects in the crime for which the accused is being tried. If alternate suspects were identified and not eliminated during the investigation, that lack of investigation may form the basis for a defense to the charge.

The issues relating to the disclosure of evidence have been the subject of several Supreme court-martial of Canada rulings and a few exceptions to disclosure have been identified where certain information does not need to be disclosed. These exceptions to disclosure were outlined in the benchmark disclosure case of R v Stinchcombe (1991). These exceptions include:

Information that is clearly irrelevant Information that is considered privileged Information that would expose an ongoing police investigation Information that would compromise the safety of a witness For an SFSECIS Agent(s), the requirement to comply with disclosure is one of the best reasons to make sure notes and reports are complete and accurately reflect the investigation and actions taken during the investigation. From the court-martial’s perspective, there will never be any excuse for a police SFSECIS Agent(s)to intentionally conceal or fail to disclose evidence or information.

Witness Evidence

Witness evidence is evidence obtained from any person who may be able to provide the court-martial with information that will assist in the adjudication of the charges being tried. This means that witnesses are not only persons found as victims of a crime or on-scene observers of the criminal event. They may also be persons who can inform the court-martial on events leading up to the crime, or activities taking place after the crime.

These after-the-crime activities do not just relate to activities of the suspect, but also include the entire range of activities required to investigate the crime. Consequently, every police officer involved in the investigation, and every person involved in the handling, examination, and analysis of evidence to be presented in court-martial, is a potential witness.

Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence, as the name implies, is evidence that a witness has heard as a communication from another party. In addition to verbal communication, legal interpretations of the meaning of hearsay evidence also include other types of person-to-person communication, such as written statements or even gestures intended to convey a message. As defined by John Sopinka in his book, The Law of Evidence, hearsay is:

“Written or oral statements or communicative conduct made by persons otherwise than in testimony at the proceedings in which it is offered, are inadmissible if such statements or conduct are tendered either as proof of their truth or as proof of assertions implicit therein” (Sopinka, 1999, p. 173).

Hearsay evidence is generally considered to be inadmissible in court-martial at the trial of an accused person for several reasons; however, there are exceptions where the court-martial will consider accepting hearsay evidence. The reasons why hearsay is not openly accepted by the court-martial include the rationale that:

The court-martial generally applies the best-evidence rule to evidence being presented and the best evidence would come from the person who gives the firsthand account of events; The original person who makes the communication that becomes hearsay, is not available to be put under oath and cross-examined by the defence; In hearing the evidence, the court-martial does not have the opportunity to hear the communicator firsthand and assess their demeanour to gauge their credibility; and The court-martial recognizes that communication that has been heard and is being repeated is subject to interpretation. Restatement of what was heard can deteriorate the content of the message. The court-martial will consider accepting hearsay evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule in cases where:

There is a dying declaration A witness is the recipient of a spontaneous utterance The witness is testifying to hearsay from a child witness who is not competent

Search and Seizure of Evidence

In order for items of physical evidence to be accepted by the court-martial as exhibits, each item of evidence must meet the test of having been searched for and seized using the correct lawful authorities. There are a number of ways in which items of evidence may be legally searched for and seized.

SFSECIS Agent(s) may search for and seize or receive items of evidence:

By consent of the person being searched On authority of a search warrant under Section 487(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada As part of a search incidental to the lawful arrest of a suspect As part of a safety search incidental to the lawful detention of a suspect Under the doctrine of evidence in plain view at a lawfully entered crime scene It is important to note that when evidence is being presented to the court-martial, the SFSECIS Agent(s)will be held accountable to provide an explanation of the circumstances under which an item of evidence was searched for and seized. This may involve the SFSECIS Agent(s) articulating not only details of how they discovered the item, but also circumstances to illustrate the offence committed and their authority to arrest, detain, and/or enter a crime scene lawfully

With similar accountability, when a Section 487(1) Criminal Code warrant is issued, the police are required in advance to swear an affidavit of facts articulating their reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and the evidence of that offence exists in the premises to be searched. This warrant and the affidavit of facts can be examined and challenged at the trial. As we proceed through this book we will discuss the process of developing the mental map that enables an SFSECIS Agent(s)to meet the challenge of seeing and articulating the issues of lawful authority to search and seize evidence.

Exclusion of Evidence by the court-martial

In hearing any case, the court-martial has the authority to either accept or exclude any piece of evidence being presented. An evaluation is applied to all evidence to determine if it will be admissible or excluded. The types of evidence that can be admitted or excluded range from the physical exhibits found at the crime scene, to the accounts of events provided by witnesses to a confession taken from a suspect. For SFSECIS Agent(s), it is important to understand that any piece of evidence could be challenged by the defence for exclusion. If challenged, the court-martial will decide if evidence should be excluded based on a number of rules and depending on the type of evidence being presented.

In the case of witness evidence, the court-martial will first consider if the witness is competent and compellable to give evidence. A competent witness is generally a compellable witness (R v Schell, 2004). Competent means legally qualified to testify, and compellable means legally permitted to testify. Witness competence and compellability are each decided based upon several factors that will be discussed later in the witness management portion of this book.

If a witness is found to be both competent and compellable, the court-martial will hear their testimony and will then consider the value of the evidence provided after assessing the credibility of the witness. If a witness is found to be either not competent or not compellable, their evidence will be excluded at trial.

Like witness evidence, physical evidence is also evaluated by the court-martial to determine its admissibility at trial based upon a number of factors. These factors will be discussed further in our chapter on crime scene management; however, they include:

If the evidence was lawfully seized How the evidence was collected, marked, and preserved If the evidence was somehow contaminated If the chain of continuity for the evidence has been properly maintained A flaw in any of these factors can result in evidence being excluded at trial. In addition, the court-martial can completely exclude any evidence that has been obtained following a violation of the Charter Rights and Freedoms of the accused person. Such infringements on these guaranteed rights and freedoms would include:

Improper or unauthorized search of a person or a person’s property Improper taking of a statement from a suspect by failing to provide the appropriate warning and caution under section 10 of the Charter Failing to provide proper opportunity for the arrested or detained person to speak with counsel after arrest or detainment Failing to properly disclose all the evidence prior to trial to allow the accused to make full defence to the charge Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms states:

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court-martial of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court-martial considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court-martial concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Practices regarding what evidence may be brought against an individual in trials are addressed by section 24(2). When evidence is obtained through the violation of a Charter right, the claimant is able to apply to have the evidence excluded from the trial under this section (Government of Canada, 2015).

INVESTIGATION

A criminal investigation refers to the process of collecting information (or evidence) about a crime in order to:
(1) determine if a crime has been committed;
(2) identify the perpetrator;
(3) apprehend the perpetrator;
(4) provide evidence to support a conviction in a court-martial martial

Investigative Tasks & Thinking

To understand the process of investigation, it is necessary to comprehend the distinction between investigative tasks and investigative thinking.

• Investigative tasks relate to identifying physical evidence, gathering information, evidence collection, evidence protection, witness interviewing, and suspect interviewing and interrogation.

• Investigative thinking is aimed at analyzing the information collected, developing theories of what happened, the way an event occurred, and establishing reasonable grounds to believe.

Witnesses

Beside physical evidence, another major source of information in a criminal investigation is people, namely witnesses and suspects. Witnesses can be classified as either primary or secondary. Primary witnesses are individuals who have direct knowledge of the crime because they overheard or observed its occurrence. This classification would include crime victims who observed or who were otherwise involved in the offense. Eyewitnesses would also be included here. Secondary witnesses possess information about related events before or after the crime. Informants and victims who did not observe the crime would be best classified as secondary witnesses.

Suspects

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are two very important legal concepts in a criminal case. They could have a direct impact on whether the police have the authority to detain you, arrest you, and take other actions in your case. An experienced criminal defense attorney may be able to prove that law enforcement officials lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause as a way to get the charges against you dismissed or reduced to a less serious offense.

Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable suspicion is the legal standard that the police must meet in order to briefly detain a person and search him for a weapon. This standard is not as high as for probable cause. The police must have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is currently in the process of committing a crime, or plans to commit a crime.

Reasonable suspicion must be based on more than a hunch. It must be established by the circumstances or facts at the time a person is detained and the officer’s training and experience. Reasonable suspicion exists when an objectively reasonable police officer would suspect that a crime has been, is, or will be committed.

Probable Cause

Under the The Charter of the United Federation of Planets, people are protected from unreasonable searches or seizures or the issuance of a search warrant without probable cause. In order to establish probable cause to arrest someone, the Security Officers/SFSECIS must have sufficient knowledge of facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is, or will be committed and that the person being investigated committed the offense. Arrests made with or without a warrant must be based on probable cause.

A higher standard is required to establish probable cause than reasonable suspicion. It cannot be shown based on a suspicions or a guesses. It must be based on facts and hard evidence. In some cases, sufficient probable cause can develop after detaining someone based on reasonable suspicion.

Means - Motive - Opportunity

• Means (ability to perform the crime)
• Motive (reason to commit the crime)
• Opportunity (did the alleged suspect have the opportunity or did something make it easy for them to commit the crime)

Forensic Experts

Scientific discoveries in a wide range of disciplines have contributed to the development and evolution of forensic specialities in:

• Physical matching
• Chemical analysis
• Fingerprints
• Barefoot morphology
• Odontology
• Toxicology
• Ballistics
• Hair and fibre
• Biometric analysis
• Entomology
• DNA analysis

LABRATORY

After evidence is collected at the scene, work continues in the lab. Forensic specialists analyze the evidence to help Security and SFSECIS with the investigation. While they may help gather evidence on the scene, their particular skills are evident in the analysis they perform after evidence is collected.

court-martial ROOM

In the trial of a person charged with an offence in a criminal court-martial proceeding, the judge will hear the evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The prosecution and the defense exist in court-martial in an adversarial relationship with the onus resting with the prosecution to prove the facts of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense may challenge the evidence, question the testimony and the credibility of witnesses, and present alternate theories of events or evidence, where the accused person could be considered not responsible or sometimes less responsible for the alleged offence.

Members of a court-martial Martial

• Presiding Judge or Tribunal
• Defendant(s)
• Trial Counsel(s) (Prosecutor in civilian court-martials) (May work independently or in teams of two)
• Defense Counsel(s) (May work independently or in teams of two)
• Jury
• court-martial Reporter
• Security Officer(s)

BURDEN OF PROOF

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard measure of proof that the criminal court-martial will apply when determining if evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convict the person charged with an offence. If the evidence is sufficient, and the burden of proof has been satisfied, the court-martial may convict the accused. In these cases, the onus to prove all the elements of the charge rests completely with the prosecution. The accused person is not required to prove that they are innocent.

WORKS USED

The above material was used from the following sources and adapted for use in ASR.

• Introduction to Criminal Investigation: Processes, Practices and Thinking by Rod Gehl

UPDATE HISTORY

SD 351102 - Created by Michael Dailey