Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
In a criminal case, the standard of proof threshold is "Beyond reasonable doubt"
"Reasonable Doubt" a standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding.
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."
In a civil case, the standard of proof is "a preponderance of evidence"
preponderance of the evidence n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977723610
Jordan Chandler admits he lied about Michael Jackson
June 28, 2009 11:43 AM EDT
views: 4634 | rating: 9.2/10 (11 votes) | comments: 51
http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/jordan-chandler-admits-he-l…
Jordan Chandler admits he lied about Michael Jackson
June 27, 2009
Admits he lied
After the sudden death of Michael Jackson Evan Chandler tells the truth.
In 1993, Chandler told a psychiatrist and police that he and Jackson had engaged in sexual acts that included oral sex, the boy gave detailed description of Jackson’s genitals. The case was settled out of court for a reported $22 million, but the strain led Jackson to begin taking painkillers. Eventually he became addicted.
Now maybe for the remorse of his death Chandler decides to tell us the truth. ” I never meant to lie and destroy Michael Jackson but my father made me to tell only lies. Now i can’t tell Michael how much i’m sorry and if he will forgive me ”.Evan Chandler was tape-recorded saying amongst other things, “If I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever…
Under the influence of a controversial father (Jordan Chandler) told his son to tell that Jackson had touched his penis.Jordan Chandler then told a psychiatrist and later police that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as well as giving a detailed description of what he alleged were the singer’s genitals.
” Now for the first time i can’t bare to lie anymore. Michael Jackson didn’t do anything to me, all was my father lies to escape from being poor.”
thats why i'm real careful around children..i adore children,but with all the wierd shit going on,i don't play with them as much,unless they are my buddies kids..
The source is questionable and no other media picked up on it.
I consider the article suspect
and also in reading the case history, I am not entirely convinced average Joe would've been convicted either.
With your belief comes your bias, and that's fine.
At least admit it
But legally, he was not convicted of being a pedophile and only ONE CHILD ever claimed he was sexually inappropriate....ONE.
Even though MJ was around children constantly and around thousands of children.
With all the investigations and the DA who essentially said "I'm gonna get him" and staked his career on it, he NEVER found another child say MJ did anything inappropriate sexually.
If the government take MJ to trial and loses there should be no basis for a civil trial. I am not personally attacking anyone in particular but I feel the system is flawed to allow this.
Pit Row
He was used like a tube of toothpaste and thrown away when it was squeezed in all the wrong places. That is where I have compassion for the guy.
* Jason Francia (born May 30, 1980) is the son of Jackson's former maid Blanca Francia, who moved from El Salvador to the US in 1975. She worked for Jackson in the period 1986–1991 at the Jackson family home in Encino, Los Angeles, at Jackson's Century City, Los Angeles apartment called "The Hideout," and at Neverland. She often brought Jason along to her work. Jason was a friend of Jackson in the period 1987–1991, when he was 7–10 years old. Jason claimed Jackson touched his crotch twice over his shorts, and once touched his testicles from under his shorts, on each of these three occasions for a few minutes during a tickling game. On the first two occasions he received $100 each for not telling his mother. In 1996 Jackson paid the family $2,000,000 to settle the case. Blanca Francia also received $20,000 for a TV interview, which Jason claimed to have no knowledge of the amount. She testified too, in spite of the settlement. She did not see sexual activity, just an occasion where Jackson and Jason were lying together partly on, partly in a sleeping bag.[citation needed]
* Jordan Chandler, who allegedly was molested by Jackson in 1993 (see 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson), left the country to avoid testifying according to his uncle Ray Chandler. Former security guard Ralph Chacon says that at Neverland he saw Jackson putting Chandler's penis in his mouth on one occasion, and touching Chandler's crotch with his hand on another occasion. However, Chacon's reliability is disputed, as he had past conflicts with Jackson. Chacon's testimony also contradicted Chandler's affidavit. Chacon claimed having seen Jackson molest Chandler in early 1993, before May 1993 in Monaco, when Chandler alleged in his testimony that Jackson started abusing him. Chandler's mother has also testified and contradicted known facts about the case, claiming that she was the one to alert authorities about the relationship between Jackson and her son in September 1993, although authorities were alerted by Jordan's father in August 1993. Former maid Adrian McManus says she once saw Jackson touch Chandler's crotch over his clothes. Bob Jones, who worked for Jackson from 1987 to 2004 as a publicist, was a witness, but he refused to testify at trial.[25] Since Jones had been fired by Jackson in 2004 and subsequently spoke out, he was dismissed by the Jackson family as a disgruntled former employee.[25]
And yes, I am biased against any grown man who invites 10 year old boys to his house for sleepovers.
That said, let's look at this from another angle.
You are in a car accident with a friend who was driving drunk and your leg gets cut off.
State takes you (presumably now former) friend to criminal court for drunk driving and he is acquitted
Should you now not be allowed to seek civil damages (money) for you losing your leg?
Makes total sense
One civil
One criminal
Civil was scheduled BEFORE criminal and the courts would not switch them
So, if MJ had gone ahead with the civil case first, he would have shown the prosecution his hand and strategy for the criminal tried, jeopardizing his chances.
So, he settled the civil case to avoid having to tip his hand and case to the criminal prosecution prior to his criminal trial
http://surftofind.com/jackson
- For more info on the 1993 allegations, please read the book "Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations" by Geraldine Hughes. If Michael was innocent, why did he "pay off" his accuser in 1993?
First of all, let's get one thing straight. There were two cases against Michael Jackson in 1993- the criminal case and the civil case. Michael settled the civil case, reportedly paying the Chandlers $20 million. Many people say that he "paid off" his accuser but this assumption does not make sense if you take into consideration the following facts:
1) The settlement did NOT prevent the boy from testifying in the criminal trial. It makes no sense to say that Michael bought his silence. It was Jordan's own decision not to testify.
2) If Michael wanted to pay off his accuser, why didn't he do it at the very beginning? Evan Chandler made a demand for $20 million before authorities knew about the alleged abuse. If Michael wanted to buy their silence, like many people claim he did, why didn't he do it right then? Before the police trashed his home, before he was publicly humiliated, before he was subjected to a dehumanizing search of his private parts? He could have bought their silence right from the get go and avoided the whole ordeal. Instead he rejected Evan Chandler's initial demand for money. Why would a guilty man do that?
3) Even if we illogically dismiss the first two points, it still doesn't make sense to say that Michael bought Jordan Chandler's silence. If Michael's plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to prevent the boy from cooperating with authorities in the criminal trial, wouldn't it have been beneficial to him if the civil trial occurred first? So why did Michael Jackson file a motion asking for the criminal trial to take place first if his whole plan was to pay the boy off? If the criminal trial was first, Michael wouldn't have had an opportunity to buy Jordan's silence. His actions (asking for the criminal trial to precede the civil trial) are contradictory of his alleged motives (settling the civil suit to prevent the boy from testifying against him).
It seems like if you don't have the winning lottery numbers you can always SUE.
If you got into the car it is YOUR fault for making a bad decision. You have to live with it. Just like if you make a great decision you live with that. If a person wins the lottery tomorrow how many people do they blame for that? ZERO!
Post a reply to: Congressman has had it with MJ coverage