Sentences with phrase «than a reasonable doubt»

In civil court, the burden of proof is lower than the reasonable doubt standard in criminal court (that's how O.J. Simpson could be found not guilty of murder in criminal court, but liable for wrongful death in civil court).

Not exact matches

The use by Luke and Matthew of these sources can be demonstrated because, in the case of Mark, the source itself is available, and a comparison of the texts of the three gospels leaves no reasonable doubt as to its employment in the other two gospels; in the case of Q, although the original document has not survived, the occasional verbal agreement in «non-Marcan» passages of Matthew and Luke is such as to show that a document existed, although its extent can only partially be established and the possibility always remains that more than one document was used.

At a constituency level, in order for an MP or their agent to face sanction, a court would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was «wrongful and dishonest intention» on their part, rather than merely a misallocation or misunderstanding between the local and national party organisation.

«Because we can not conclude that the (instruction) error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we are obliged to vacate the convictions,» the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, less than three months after reversing former state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's separate corruption conviction on the same grounds.

I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that getting there is much more than half the fun

On the question of sexual assault on campus, the Obama administration issued a «Dear Colleague» letter in 2011 alerting colleges and universities that they should use a «preponderance of evidence» standard — rather than the more stringent «beyond a reasonable doubt» standard — when adjudicating sexual assault cases.

Generally speaking the IRS et al can assess tax on a basis of evidence far lower than «beyond a reasonable doubt».

To me, it shows beyond a reasonable doubt why there needs to be changes in leadership at the dog warden... I can't imagine any logical reason to kill 10 healthy, non - «pit bull» puppies in less than 24 hours after they were turned in.

The simple fact is that the report is not credible; it was produced by the Republican party as propaganda: nothing more than a compilation, by lobbyists for the carbon - based energy industry, of out - of - context, out - of - date or misinformed quotes or, to be charitable, reasonable doubts that climatologists would have no problem with.

The law, with all its vague non-quantifiable concepts such as «reasonable doubt», etc... is actually more rigorous than the modern day scientific community.

But beyond any reasonable doubt, the «blade» arose from some data change rather than from some algorithm change

FALSE PROPHETS, a biblical test would be that if what they say and prophesy comes to pass regard what they say but if it doesn't then don't listen to them.This seems to me the obvious approach to climate science and in fact all science and self evident as the way in which most people react.Crying wolf even if the wolf was there but keeps disappearing will lose the present scientific comunity credibility.Credibility in science is more important than risky prophesy which may give people a warning and may not, so that when scientists are reasonably sure [as in beyond reasonable doubt] they will be believed and their warnings acted upon.Better be an honest scientist than a lucky guesser.

Perhaps this supporting evidence would be sufficient that you would regard the hypothesis as confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, perhaps not, but either way, you would be more favorably inclined than before.

who introduced the idea of reasonable doubt in the types of decisions that were held to be improper in Nguyen and Brannon, although it would take more time and mental gymnastics than this jury possibly possessed to derive any inference relevant to reasonable doubt from what he said.

This is more problematic in criminal trials, where jury questions could provide evidence pushing a case over the threshold of proof needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution failed to provide, than in civil cases with a preponderance of the evidence standard.

A very small minority of states allow for reimbursement of fees upon an acquittal, but even then, it is often necessary to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you were actually innocent, so a dismissal on procedural grounds or an acquittal at a criminal trial where the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty, is not sufficient to show that it is more likely than not that you are innocent.

This defence has to do with the state of mind of the accused, rather than whether there is a reasonable doubt whether or not the complainant consented to the sexual activity.

Even a very incomplete list gives an impression of the large number of significant opinions he has written: seminal administrative law cases such as Chevron v. NRDC and Massachusetts v. EPA, the intellectual property case Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios (which made clear that making individual videotapes of television programs did not constitute copyright infringement), important war on terror precedents such as Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, important criminal law cases such as Padilla v. Kentucky (holding that defense counsel must inform the defendant if a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation) and Atkins v. Virginia (which reversed precedent to hold it was unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on the mentally retarded), and of course Apprendi v. New Jersey (which revolutionized criminal sentencing by holding that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maximums based on facts other than those decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

Otherwise, we must continue with: (1) justice that is no better than, guilt and liability by electronic systems and devices — systems and devices that are maintained only to a commercial standard and not to a standard that guarantees «proof beyond a reasonable doubt»; and, (2) case law that fails to provide an adequate opportunity for «full answer and defence.»

At the same time, I question whether those kinds of pro bono projects represent the best allocation of limited resources, when there are still defendants in Alabama who can't find a court - appointed lawyer who can create enough reasonable doubt to keep the jury deliberating more than a half hour.

The CA didn't tell us what the qualitative measure of the strength of the less than probable doubt has to be in order for it to not be a reasonable doubt.

Oftentimes, opponents of ABS seem to be assuming the onus is all on those wishing to see change happen in the legal profession, and that the standard of proof is no less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the prosecutor in a criminal trial failed to convince the trier of fact (the judge or jury) that no reasonable doubt existed as to the defendant's guilt, a plaintiff may nevertheless be able to show that it was more likely than not (the definition of a preponderance of the evidence) that the defendant committed the child abuse alleged in a civil trial.

This burden of proof is much easier to satisfy than the criminal burden of beyond a reasonable doubt.

As Scalia put it in Rita, ``... there will inevitably be some constitutional violations under a system of» [beyond a reasonable doubt because some judges are smarter than some juries and when that happens our balance of powers as exercised by the people can go take a dump].

But as pointed out above, even a not - guilty decision can still leave the question of guilt on a less than beyond all reasonable doubt standard open.

To be sure, it's not mathematically impossible, but it's far beyond any reasonable doubt; the qualified expert will be able to quantify how improbable we're talking about here better than I can, but we're not talking about one in a million, we're talking about one in a trillion trillion trillion.

In this post, I intend to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the concept of «proof beyond a reasonable doubt» is nothing more than a legal fiction.

Second, the standard of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal case — proof on a balance of probabilities, or 51 % or greater probability it happened, can often be established where proof beyond a reasonable doubt can not.

Where a prosecutor pursues such an action, a hearing must be held, and the prosecutor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (a far less standard than «beyond a reasonable doubt») that animal cruelty has occurred.

This is because the «burden of proof» in a criminal trial is different than in a civil trial: even if the Crown at a criminal trial could not prove that an assault occurred «beyond a reasonable doubt» (which is an extremely difficult threshold to meet), we may still be able to prove that it occurred on a «balance of probabilities» (which means that there is a greater than 50 % chance that the assault occurred).

The standard of proof in a criminal case — beyond a reasonable doubt — differs from that in a civil case — the preponderance of the evidence (which basically means it was more likely than not something occurred in a certain way).

Today the Court granted certiorari to Harrington v. Richter, an ineffective assistance of counsel case challenging the issuance of habeas corpus relief by the Ninth Circuit based upon counsel's reliance on cross-examination and other methods to create reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt rather than expert - opinion testimony.

If we still subscribe to the importance of the golden thread — that proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal justice is a core value of freedom and democracy — then of greater importance than myth - busting on victim typology is the continuing, but now statutorily discredited, need for warnings about the dangers of false rape allegations.

In Texas, I believe speeding is considered a Class C criminal offense (rather than a civil offense as in most absolute states); hence, they have to build the prima facie case against you and prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Assuming no other evidence than what you cite, however, while the charge might possibly survive (it is extremely weak) it would be incredibly unlikely for the person to be convicted on those facts, since a conviction has to meet the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind that this is not about proving criminal actions beyond any reasonable doubt or even about building a case against a client; rather it is alerting «a possibility, which is more than fanciful, that the relevant facts exist» (R vs. Da Silva 2006).

To preclude a civil litigant from relitigating an issue previously found against him in a criminal prosecution is less severe than to preclude him from relitigating such an issue in successive civil trials, for there are rigorous safeguards against unjust conviction, including the requirements of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and of a unanimous verdict, the right to counsel, and a record paid for by the state on appeal.

She contended, inter alia, that the standard of proof required at an inquest before a verdict of unlawful killing could be reached was proof to a lesser standard than beyond reasonable doubt, having regard to Strasbourg jurisprudence.

The standard at stage 1 (could raise a reasonable doubt) is lower than at stage 2 (likely to raise a reasonable doubt).

This is a much easier threshold to meet than the criminal evidentiary threshold of «beyond a reasonable doubt».