Friday, April 29, 2016

What Are The Main Differences Of Burden Of Proof In Criminal Court And At The Las Vegas DMV Hearing

The burden of proof implies that basically the government itself in the face of the prosecutor or the state attorney or the driver himself will have to provide enough evidence that would indicate that a person was in fact driving under the influence of alcohol. With that said, the burden of proof works very differently in criminal court cases and at the Las Vegas DMV hearing. Whereas during the criminal court hearing it is the prosecutor who will need to provide the court with sufficient burden of proof that would clearly demonstrate that the driver was guilty, during the DMV hearing the DMV officer does not have to prove anything and he or she is going to act in line with all the available evidence.

To Find More Tips And Information About Las Vegas DMV Hearing Click Here

This implies that during the criminal court hearing a person is not obliged to demonstrate that he or she was not driving under the influence of alcohol or any kind of illegal substances. On the contrary, the person will have to defend him or herself using all available evidence or legal representation. Sure enough, in case the government does not have sufficient evidence or burden of proof that would help in demonstrating that the individual is guilty, there can be no case.

For example, let us presume that the prosecutor is presenting the judge with the BAC test results along with the police, which clearly states that the defendant was in fact driving under the influence of alcohol. It is all fined and well, but the law enforcement officer who was on the scene and who subsequently submitted the report is known for being unreliable. He used to fabricate his reports in the past – there were some dangerous precedents. Furthermore, it also turned out that the equipment the law enforcement officer was using to take the BAC test was hot properly calibrated, which is also a major factor. The driver is claiming that he or she was not drinking. There is another driver, who happened to be at the scene and he is backing the defendant’s story up. It is quite apparent that there is not enough burden of proof to demonstrate the person was actually driving under the influence of alcohol and the case is going to be closed.

On the other hand, when it comes to the Las Vegas DMV hearing, the burden is on the driver to demonstrate that he or she was not driving under the influence. The DMV officer does not have to prove anything and will base his verdict on the factual evidence. One way or the other, it is extremely beneficial to have a qualified as well as genuinely experienced Las Vegas DUI attorney during both of the hearings. He is going to use all his knowledge and all of his expertise to demonstrate that the defendant is not guilty and there is not enough burden of proof that says otherwise. Hence, this is the only viable option for you.

No comments:

Post a Comment