I see no reason to be worried about Ball's sentence — or, more generally, the fact that judges apply ordinary burdens of proof when resolving factual
disputes at sentencing.
Not exact matches
If one cites Popper (para 1
sentence 1)(«As falsifiability is an essential element of science (Karl Popper), many have
disputed the scientific basis of climatic predictions on the grounds that they are not falsifiable or verifiable
at present.»)
The facts and fact - finding: Mario Claiborne pleaded guilty to two relatively minor drug offense and admitted to all the facts the district court considered
at his
sentencing; Victor Rita went to trial and the district court considered a number of
disputed facts
at his
sentencing.
A pretty large volume of the entire U.S. Court of Appeals docket involves
sentencing decisions where guilt is not
disputed, and surely panel
sentencing in cases with potentially long
sentences would reduce that and might even be money saving for the federal judicial branch as a whole despite the extra effort invested
at the trial court level, in addition to furthering justice by balancing out extreme stances.