I was researching court and the legal system for my crime story, and I read that a probable cause hearing is, a hearing to determine if there is enough probable cause to go to trial. But I was wondering, why is it that probable cause is enough to go to trial? In trial, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the defendant probably did it. So wouldn't a prosecutor need a lot more evidence than just probable cause only? But if I what I am reading is right, and probable cause is enough, how is it enough for trial really, when you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or how does that work exactly? Thank you to anyone who has any legal input on this. I really appreciate it.
Indeed 5 seconds on google told me "A Probable Cause hearing is one of the pre-trial stages of a criminal case. During a probable cause hearing, the judge will determine whether probable cause existed, usually in relation to an arrest or a search for evidence" That is once again you (ryan) have completely misunderstood everything - the probable cause hearing examines not the probability of the defendants guilt, but whether the police had sufficient 'probable cause' in gathering whatever evidence the prosecution are presenting Despite being British and knowing jackshit about the american legal system (apart from that gained from Grisham, Gimenez etc) my ability to use a search engine enabled me to get to the bottom of this in less than a minute Put another way (as may have been mentioned already) DO SOME **** RESEARCH (including talking to lawyers, prosecutors, cops etc)
