Casey Anthony Is Guilty

Edit
What is beyond reasonable doubt?
by Moe Habibi on Saturday, July 9, 2011 at 4:59pm

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the defendant's death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.

Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on "a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."

The reasonable doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant. If a prosecutor or defendant objects to a piece of evidence, the objecting party must come forward with evidence showing that the disputed evidence should be excluded from trial. Then the trial judge decides to admit or exclude it based on a preponderance of the evidence presented. A similar procedure employing a preponderance standard is used when a party challenges a variety of evidence, such as coerced confessions, illegally seized evidence, and statements extracted without the furnishing of the so-called Miranda warning.

The reasonable doubt standard is inapplicable to still other phases of a criminal prosecution. Lower standards of proof are permissible in Parole revocation proceedings, proceedings to revoke Probation, and prison inmate disciplinary proceedings . The Jury did not understand the term "beyond reasonable doubt" and they believed the defense version of the story that the child died as
result of an "accident" my question is that even if that is the case where was CASEY when the accident happened? why the mother was not watching her child? and for a mother to "let" an accident happen and a child dies isn't it a "crime" itself and shouldn't the mom be punished for her failure to protect her child? I think this jury should be ashamed because they did not take the time to connect the dots and they did not fully understand the case and as a result a guilty person was set free. This was a dark day in our justice system. Who is going to protect the children if justice system can not?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Casey
• Anthony
• Is
• Guilty

[stack1998]

@ priciole101 Right on ! ! I hear You buddy !

[stack1998]

Dear Harold562 : thank you for your support and thank you for caring for little caylee. this jury should be ashamed and I hope their decision for ever bother them and stop them from getting any sleep. If Casey start making money for what she did to Caylee it will really really bother me. that is why we all should bond together and let all the publisher know that we are not interested to let Casey benefit from death of little caylee and we will never buy anything they publish . Thanks again .

[stack1998]

@usherpaulson Thank you my friend. The more I look at little Caylee's picture the more upset I get for her life to end so soon and so sadly .

[stack1998]

@yftwentytoo Thank you. I am glad that you like the video. we must stand up for little kids.

[MrAwesomesauce101]

A retarded jury and lack of police work lead to a child murder being set free.

[chicken1654]

are you at work making vids lol

[principles101]

Absolutely correct! The jury did not do their duty. They did not do their due diligence and just wanted to go home, plain and simple! Less than 11 hours of deliberation in a case with over 350 pieces of State evidence...give me a break! Defence was successful in picking a jury with less than body temperature IQ for this case. They were incapable of critically analyzing ANY of the evidence against her.

[harold562]

"An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth, An evil for evil"... she can run, but she will never be able to hide from her past. Do not worry, her days are counted, either she suicides or rots to death. Shes bound to never find a job, be public harrassed and discriminated, and become a low life drunker on the streets. The only thing ill regret is expending tax money on that trial and the fuel that will burn her corpse to ashes.

[usherpaulson]

Wish you were on that jury.

[yftwentytoo]

GREAT VIDEO !! Thank You!!!!