what is wrong? the jury instructions were wrong?
I can produce thousands using the same language. millions if I wasted enough time on a retard such as yourself because the idiot here is you. always is you
An educatonal piece... Criminal Law v. Civil Law.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
what is wrong? the jury instructions were wrong?
I can produce thousands using the same language. millions if I wasted enough time on a retard such as yourself because the idiot here is you. always is you
Your source: breaking criminal law. What criminal law was broken? Who were the victims? The biggest banks in the world? Seriously? Only someone bereft of common sense or honesty can argue that this was nothing but Third World Fascism in an effort to destroy a political threat.
True, but using the civil standard, that has been in place for hundreds of years, he was found liable. THat did not start with O.J., you may have first been made aware of how it works then, but its been that way for a very long time going back to England before the U.S. was formed.
Produce one valid jury instruction that used your language.
I already did. here it is again dipshit
https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_judges/denlow/coffeyji.htm
A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE MEANS SUCH EVIDENCE AS, WHEN CONSIDERED AND COMPARED WITH THAT OPPOSED TO IT, HAS MORE CONVINCING FORCE AND PRODUCES IN YOUR MINDS A BELIEF THAT WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PROVED IS MORE LIKELY TRUE THAN NOT TRUE. IN OTHER WORDS, TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE MEANS TO PROVE THAT THE CLAIM IS MORE LIKELY SO THAN NOT SO.
Right the standard is "A preponderance of the Evidence. The Judge editorialized.
right - and the plain language explanation given to people on the jury is "More likely than not."
California even codified that specific language in 2003 - which is why millions of jury instructions now say "more likely than not"
link here : https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/brochures/jury-instructions/
let me know if you need further education. your ignorance is amazing
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and you don't see any issue with that? using a 'civil' standard to get past a criminal verdict that you disagree with?
how about an entire State. California stopped using preponderance - as it was too confusing. They use plain language now - the meaning is the same though dipshit
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/200/
this is where someone with integrity goes. wow - I was wrong
you aren't that person though. you are a shit stain, and I expect you to prove it in your next reply
Not all states are the same, but in NY it is beyond a preponderance of a doubt... Trump is guilty of rape beyond a preponderance of a doubt.
Its not a criminal verdict, if it had been, there would be criminal punishments. Its is a civil verdict. There is a reason it is so hard to put someone in jail.
the meaning of the language is the same in all states
you asked for one valid jury instruction using the language I used - I produced one for an entire state. so fuck off shit stain.
you shit stains are all alike. no integrity. just a big piece of shit smearing yourself in the forums.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
because the founders distrusted government, so they made it difficult. i'm imagining that they didn't care much for civil trials being used to punish people because it was easier either.
since it's NOT a criminal verdict, how can you call trump a rapist or OJ a murderer?
Let me see if I have this right based on the court's ruling....
It is more likely true that
Trump is a Rapist!!!
Than it is more likely not true that
Trump is a Rapist!!!
The O.J. and Trump cases were not about punishment. OJ was about damages and Trumps was about disgorgement. Neither of those are punishment.
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.
This is all the founders had to say about Criminal cases, they made a provision for Capital cases or infamous crimes. (Felonies). Otherwise, Due Process is enough.
It's easy to do so. You only have to accept the court ruling that
Trump is a Rapist!!!
One can have committed an act without being convicted of that act in a criminal court.
Can someone be a plagiarizer without a criminal conviction?
Can someone be a teetotaler without a criminal conviction?
It is the act of rape that makes someone a rapist, not the criminal conviction. Criminal conviction makes them guilty of violating the law prohibiting rape.
A civil conviction makes them liable for the harm caused by the rape.
In both instances the person is found by a court to have committed rape. In one instance there is a criminal penalty. In the other there is a civil penalty.
It's easy to consider the loss in a civil case as punishment. It isn't from the standpoint that it can never deprive anyone of life or liberty.
are you 18 years old yet?
the font size screams no
the other side of that coin - it is reasonable to believe that Trump is not a rapist
Are you six years old and can't read? I clearly stated both possibilities. Try reading it again. This time for comprehension.
It is simply not punishment, it is based on a different standard.