From: Karen Selwyn on
mrtravel wrote:
>>
>> Hatunen was subtly riffing on Mixi's ignorance of the law. The
>> standard of proof for a civil trial is "preponderance of evidence."
>> That's a different standard than the more-familiar "beyond a resonable
>> doubt" associated with criminal law.
>
>
> Is there no proof associated with "perpderence of evidence"?

The defendant wins in a civil case when the litigant fails to "prove"
the case based on a preponderance of evidence. The defendant wins in a
criminal case when the state fails to "prove" the case beyond a
reasonable doubt.


Karen Selwyn

From: Mxsmanic on
Karen Selwyn writes:

> Hatunen was subtly riffing on Mixi's ignorance of the law. The standard
> of proof for a civil trial is "preponderance of evidence."

There is no trial for civil forfeiture.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: dgs on
Martin wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:07:06 -0700, dgs <dgs1300(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>[...] Yep, that's how it is in the weird and mixi'ed up world of a
>>stuffy little apartment in Paris...
>
> ... tell us about his Last Tango.

The horror! The horror!
--
dgs
From: Hatunen on
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:16:45 -0400, Karen Selwyn
<kselwyntacc(a)erols.com> wrote:

>mrtravel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In civil matters "proof" is not a criterion.
>>>
>>
>> Really? There is no need for evidence?
>
>Hatunen was subtly riffing on Mixi's ignorance of the law. The standard
>of proof for a civil trial is "preponderance of evidence." That's a
>different standard than the more-familiar "beyond a resonable doubt"
>associated with criminal law.

Neither of which constitutes "proof".

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Hatunen on
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:22:50 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>Karen Selwyn writes:
>
>> Hatunen was subtly riffing on Mixi's ignorance of the law. The standard
>> of proof for a civil trial is "preponderance of evidence."
>
>There is no trial for civil forfeiture.

A trial is not an essential component of due process.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *