The Experts below are selected from a list of 9 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Michael D. Cicchini - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reasonable Doubt and Relativity
2019Co-Authors: Michael D. CicchiniAbstract:In theory, the Constitution protects us against criminal conviction unless the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But in reality, this lofty standard is only as strong as the words used to explain it to the jury. Unfortunately, attempts to explain reasonable doubt often create confusion or even diminish the burden of proof. Many courts therefore believe that the better practice is not to attempt a definition. However, empirical studies demonstrate that reasonable doubt is not self-defining, i.e., when it is not explained to the jury, it offers defendants no greater protection against conviction than the two lower, civil burdens of proof. To solve this dilemma, courts should explain reasonable doubt on a relative basis, within the context of the civil burdens of proof. A relative, context-based Instruction will allow jurors to compare and contrast the different standards, thus giving them the necessary reference points to appreciate how high the state’s burden actually is. This approach is rooted in a psychological principle called “contrast effects,” and is now supported by empirical evidence as well. In this Article I present the results of my controlled experiment where mock jurors read the identical case summary of a criminal trial and were then randomly assigned to two groups, each of which received a different reasonable doubt Instruction. The group that received the relative, context-based Instruction acquitted at a rate 30 percent higher than the group that received a simple, Undefined Instruction. This result was significant at p < .05. Further, participants that received this relative, context-based Instruction required a higher subjective confidence level in the defendant’s guilt before they were willing to convict. Drawing on this and other behavioral research, this Article presents a comprehensive jury Instruction on the presumption of innocence and burden of proof that is designed to fulfill the Constitution’s promise: to ensure that defendants remain free of conviction “except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Cicchini, Michael D. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reasonable Doubt and Relativity
Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons, 2020Co-Authors: Cicchini, Michael D.Abstract:In theory, the Constitution protects us against criminal conviction unless the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In reality, this lofty standard is only as strong as the words used to explain it to the jury. Unfortunately, attempts to explain reasonable doubt often create confusion, and sometimes even diminish the burden of proof. Many courts therefore believe that the better practice is not to attempt a definition. However, empirical studies demonstrate that reasonable doubt is not self-defining, i.e., when it is not explained to the jury, it offers defendants no greater protection against conviction than the two lower, civil burdens of proof. To solve this dilemma, courts should explain reasonable doubt on a relative basis, within the context of the civil burdens of proof. A relative, context-based Instruction will allow jurors to compare and contrast the different standards, thus giving them the necessary reference points to appreciate how high the state’s burden actually is. This approach is rooted in a psychological principle called “contrast effects,” and is now supported by empirical evidence as well. In this Article, I present the results of my controlled experiment where mock jurors read the identical case summary of a criminal trial and were then randomly assigned to two groups, each of which received a different reasonable doubt Instruction. The group that received the relative, context-based Instruction acquitted at a rate 30 percent higher than the group that received a simple, Undefined Instruction. This result was significant at p \u3c .05. Further, participants that received this relative, context-based Instruction required a higher subjective confidence level in the defendant’s guilt before they were willing to convict. Drawing on this and other behavioral research, this Article presents a comprehensive jury Instruction on the presumption of innocence and burden of proof that is designed to fulfill the Constitution’s promise: to ensure that defendants remain free of conviction “except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gürhanl Ahmet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Design of a RISC Processor Compatible with ARM Instructions
2007Co-Authors: Gürhanl AhmetAbstract:此篇論文討論ARM指令相容之精簡指令集處理器設計，此處理器以3級管線化設計之，包含存取指令，解碼，和執行等三級。此處理器設計包含了44個輸入接腳及79個輸出接腳，資料及定址匯流排則為32位元，最高運算速度可達90MHz。此晶片設計以0.18製程製造。We are going to see the design process of a RISC processor for ARM Instructions. The processor is pipelined into 3 stages; fetch, decode and execute. There are 44 input and 79 output pins, excluding the power connections. The data and address bus are both 32-bit. Highest frequency is 90MHz with 0.18 CMOS technology. The processor supports virtual memory systems. Instruction set covers branch and branch with link, data processing, program status register transfer, multiply and multiply accumulate, single data transfer, block data transfer, single data swap, software interrupt, coprocessor data operations, coprocessor data transfers, coprocessor register transfers and Undefined Instruction. We will start with building a general idea about the architecture and IO signals of the processor. Then we will see the Instruction set of the processor including the binary encoding of the Instructions. We will examine the organization of the components of the processor in third chapter. Fourth chapter is about design flow ie, the transformation of the design from an RTL code into a physical chip. In fifth chapter we will se the simulation results of post-layout design. Then we will end up with the conclusion.Intruduction 1 Instruction Set 6 Components 22 Design Flow 42 Simulartion Results 48 Coclusion 5
