true or false? and is it the same in TX?
2006-12-05 15:47:41 · 6 answers · asked by Laura D 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Only in civil cases is the evidence weighed by a preponderance of the evidence. In criminal cases it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
2006-12-05 18:05:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To convict a defendant in a criminal trial, the must prove them all beyond a reasonable doubt, not preponderance of the evidence. State law governs what the burden of proof is for a civil case.
2006-12-06 09:58:26 · answer #2 · answered by On Time 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Make sure that you look at the statute for the offense. It will usually state the "elements". Be sure to see if the elements use the words OR or use the words AND. Such as "Entering into a dwelling without the consent of the owner AND for the purposes of depriving the owner of the property therein. This means both elements have to be met. If it states "Enters into a dwelling for the purpose of depriving the owner of the property or without consent taking said property. This means either or element has to be made, but not both.
Most courts look to determine if the evidence to convict is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That doesn't mean it has to be 100 %, just beyond a reasonable doubt that a) a crime was committed and b) you committed that crime.
2006-12-05 23:56:32 · answer #3 · answered by foxfire 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In a criminal case: False The standard in a criminal case is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Guilt by a proponderance of evidence is the standard of liability in a civil case.
2006-12-06 10:22:37 · answer #4 · answered by JOHN 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no
and really they don't have to prove diddle.
if a judge or jury thinks a person is guilty
goodbye,,,,
2006-12-05 23:50:36 · answer #5 · answered by cork 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
not if you have OJ's money
2006-12-05 23:50:26 · answer #6 · answered by jason 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋