The Standard of Evidence in Case of the Admission of Guilt Agreement
The Standard of Evidence in Case of the Admission of Guilt Agreement

Summary/Abstract: It is generally acknowledged that, to convict an accused after the conclusion of an admission of guilt agreement it is not necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal deed has occurred, as it is enough to be in the presence of a factual base. We will approach in this article just one of these issues, namely the special situations in which only one of the defendants concludes an admission of guilt agreements and the other defendants do not admit to the crime. In case all defendants are charged with one crime or of the distinctive crime of forming an organized crime group, the courts of law must analyze the cause from the perspective of two different standards of proof, one for the defendant who concluded an admission of guilt agreement and another for those who have not admitted to the crimes they are charged with. This can lead to different court decisions regarding the same crime, thus creating a significant risk of wrongful conviction of the defendant who concluded the admission of guilt agreement. This is why it would be necessary to distinctively regulate this situation and limit the possibility of concluding an admission of guilt agreement with only one of the defendants or only some of the participants in the crime or to allow the courts to analyze the admission of guilt agreement by considering the higher standard of evidence (beyond reasonable doubt).

• Details
• Contents