Comments by "" (@fedup6969) on "WBIR Channel 10"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@teresa8793 You're the one that's ignorant of the law.
FYI, if you’re accused of a crime in the US, you are innocent until the prosecution proves you guilty. The prosecution must prove every element of the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard is the highest evidence level the US courts require. All criminal cases require this burden of proof.
Amdt5.4.5.7.4 Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt-
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
The standard is closely related to the presumption of innocence, which helps to ensure a defendant a fair trial, and requires that a jury consider a case solely on the evidence. The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American criminal justice system. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence.
Proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt comes with a high burden of proof. The jury (or the judge if the trial is a bench trial) must believe that no reasonable person would doubt the defendant’s guilt. However, it is different from proving the case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Proving a case with clear and convincing evidence means that the judge or jury believes the defendant is almost undoubtedly guilty or responsible for the claims made against him. It does not require that all doubts be removed from the minds of the judge or jury. Instead, the judge or jury must believe that the case the plaintiff presented is almost certainly true.
This is the most common burden of proof required in such civil cases. However, it is never used as the standard for finding a defendant guilty in a criminal case.
The preponderance of the evidence standard is the lowest burden of proof required. This standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the evidence presented is more likely true. This burden of proof is used in administrative law cases and some civil cases. However, it is never used for finding guilt in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction typically hinges on the body of evidence the prosecution presents. How much evidence is needed to prosecute varies depending on the case. The prosecution must prove the defendant committed the crime at hand, and the prosecution will build its case on the best evidence available. It typically entails two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without needing any inferences or assumptions. Thus, it demonstrates the ultimate truth to be proved. A witness relates directly to what is experienced. Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, video recordings, and DNA evidence. Direct evidence is often considered stronger than circumstantial evidence because it leaves little room for doubt.
Circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial evidence requires inference or deduction to connect it to a conclusion. It is evidence that suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. Examples of circumstantial evidence include footprints at a crime scene, motive, or behavior patterns. Circumstantial evidence can be robust, but it is often open to interpretation and can be challenged.
1
-
@Posithope You're the one that's ignorant of the law.
FYI, if you’re accused of a crime in the US, you are innocent until the prosecution proves you guilty. The prosecution must prove every element of the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard is the highest evidence level the US courts require. All criminal cases require this burden of proof.
Amdt5.4.5.7.4 Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt-
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
The standard is closely related to the presumption of innocence, which helps to ensure a defendant a fair trial, and requires that a jury consider a case solely on the evidence. The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American criminal justice system. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence.
Proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt comes with a high burden of proof. The jury (or the judge if the trial is a bench trial) must believe that no reasonable person would doubt the defendant’s guilt. However, it is different from proving the case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Proving a case with clear and convincing evidence means that the judge or jury believes the defendant is almost undoubtedly guilty or responsible for the claims made against him. It does not require that all doubts be removed from the minds of the judge or jury. Instead, the judge or jury must believe that the case the plaintiff presented is almost certainly true.
This is the most common burden of proof required in such civil cases. However, it is never used as the standard for finding a defendant guilty in a criminal case.
The preponderance of the evidence standard is the lowest burden of proof required. This standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the evidence presented is more likely true. This burden of proof is used in administrative law cases and some civil cases. However, it is never used for finding guilt in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction typically hinges on the body of evidence the prosecution presents. How much evidence is needed to prosecute varies depending on the case. The prosecution must prove the defendant committed the crime at hand, and the prosecution will build its case on the best evidence available. It typically entails two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without needing any inferences or assumptions. Thus, it demonstrates the ultimate truth to be proved. A witness relates directly to what is experienced. Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, video recordings, and DNA evidence. Direct evidence is often considered stronger than circumstantial evidence because it leaves little room for doubt.
Circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial evidence requires inference or deduction to connect it to a conclusion. It is evidence that suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. Examples of circumstantial evidence include footprints at a crime scene, motive, or behavior patterns. Circumstantial evidence can be robust, but it is often open to interpretation and can be challenged.
1
-
@Lana-xi8mc You're the one that's ignorant of the law.
FYI, if you’re accused of a crime in the US, you are innocent until the prosecution proves you guilty. The prosecution must prove every element of the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard is the highest evidence level the US courts require. All criminal cases require this burden of proof.
Amdt5.4.5.7.4 Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt-
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
The standard is closely related to the presumption of innocence, which helps to ensure a defendant a fair trial, and requires that a jury consider a case solely on the evidence. The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American criminal justice system. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence.
Proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt comes with a high burden of proof. The jury (or the judge if the trial is a bench trial) must believe that no reasonable person would doubt the defendant’s guilt. However, it is different from proving the case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Proving a case with clear and convincing evidence means that the judge or jury believes the defendant is almost undoubtedly guilty or responsible for the claims made against him. It does not require that all doubts be removed from the minds of the judge or jury. Instead, the judge or jury must believe that the case the plaintiff presented is almost certainly true.
This is the most common burden of proof required in such civil cases. However, it is never used as the standard for finding a defendant guilty in a criminal case.
The preponderance of the evidence standard is the lowest burden of proof required. This standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the evidence presented is more likely true. This burden of proof is used in administrative law cases and some civil cases. However, it is never used for finding guilt in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction typically hinges on the body of evidence the prosecution presents. How much evidence is needed to prosecute varies depending on the case. The prosecution must prove the defendant committed the crime at hand, and the prosecution will build its case on the best evidence available. It typically entails two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without needing any inferences or assumptions. Thus, it demonstrates the ultimate truth to be proved. A witness relates directly to what is experienced. Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, video recordings, and DNA evidence. Direct evidence is often considered stronger than circumstantial evidence because it leaves little room for doubt.
Circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial evidence requires inference or deduction to connect it to a conclusion. It is evidence that suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. Examples of circumstantial evidence include footprints at a crime scene, motive, or behavior patterns. Circumstantial evidence can be robust, but it is often open to interpretation and can be challenged.
1
-
@teresa8793 You're the one that's ignorant of the law.
FYI, if you’re accused of a crime in the US, you are innocent until the prosecution proves you guilty. The prosecution must prove every element of the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard is the highest evidence level the US courts require. All criminal cases require this burden of proof.
Amdt5.4.5.7.4 Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt-
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
The standard is closely related to the presumption of innocence, which helps to ensure a defendant a fair trial, and requires that a jury consider a case solely on the evidence. The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American criminal justice system. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence.
Proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt comes with a high burden of proof. The jury (or the judge if the trial is a bench trial) must believe that no reasonable person would doubt the defendant’s guilt. However, it is different from proving the case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Proving a case with clear and convincing evidence means that the judge or jury believes the defendant is almost undoubtedly guilty or responsible for the claims made against him. It does not require that all doubts be removed from the minds of the judge or jury. Instead, the judge or jury must believe that the case the plaintiff presented is almost certainly true.
This is the most common burden of proof required in such civil cases. However, it is never used as the standard for finding a defendant guilty in a criminal case.
The preponderance of the evidence standard is the lowest burden of proof required. This standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the evidence presented is more likely true. This burden of proof is used in administrative law cases and some civil cases. However, it is never used for finding guilt in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction typically hinges on the body of evidence the prosecution presents. How much evidence is needed to prosecute varies depending on the case. The prosecution must prove the defendant committed the crime at hand, and the prosecution will build its case on the best evidence available. It typically entails two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without needing any inferences or assumptions. Thus, it demonstrates the ultimate truth to be proved. A witness relates directly to what is experienced. Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, video recordings, and DNA evidence. Direct evidence is often considered stronger than circumstantial evidence because it leaves little room for doubt.
Circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial evidence requires inference or deduction to connect it to a conclusion. It is evidence that suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. Examples of circumstantial evidence include footprints at a crime scene, motive, or behavior patterns. Circumstantial evidence can be robust, but it is often open to interpretation and can be challenged.
1
-
@Posithope you're the one that's looking stupid. You're the one that's ignorant of the law.
FYI, if you’re accused of a crime in the US, you are innocent until the prosecution proves you guilty. The prosecution must prove every element of the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The beyond-a-reasonable doubt standard is the highest evidence level the US courts require. All criminal cases require this burden of proof.
Amdt5.4.5.7.4 Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt-
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
The standard is closely related to the presumption of innocence, which helps to ensure a defendant a fair trial, and requires that a jury consider a case solely on the evidence. The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American criminal justice system. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence.
Proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt comes with a high burden of proof. The jury (or the judge if the trial is a bench trial) must believe that no reasonable person would doubt the defendant’s guilt. However, it is different from proving the case beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Proving a case with clear and convincing evidence means that the judge or jury believes the defendant is almost undoubtedly guilty or responsible for the claims made against him. It does not require that all doubts be removed from the minds of the judge or jury. Instead, the judge or jury must believe that the case the plaintiff presented is almost certainly true.
This is the most common burden of proof required in such civil cases. However, it is never used as the standard for finding a defendant guilty in a criminal case.
The preponderance of the evidence standard is the lowest burden of proof required. This standard requires the plaintiff to prove that the evidence presented is more likely true. This burden of proof is used in administrative law cases and some civil cases. However, it is never used for finding guilt in a criminal case.
A criminal conviction typically hinges on the body of evidence the prosecution presents. How much evidence is needed to prosecute varies depending on the case. The prosecution must prove the defendant committed the crime at hand, and the prosecution will build its case on the best evidence available. It typically entails two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial.
Direct evidence:
Direct evidence directly proves a fact without needing any inferences or assumptions. Thus, it demonstrates the ultimate truth to be proved. A witness relates directly to what is experienced. Examples of direct evidence include eyewitness testimony, video recordings, and DNA evidence. Direct evidence is often considered stronger than circumstantial evidence because it leaves little room for doubt.
Circumstantial evidence:
Circumstantial evidence requires inference or deduction to connect it to a conclusion. It is evidence that suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. Examples of circumstantial evidence include footprints at a crime scene, motive, or behavior patterns. Circumstantial evidence can be robust, but it is often open to interpretation and can be challenged.
1