There is plenty of evidence but not enough to criminally convict beyond a reasonable doubt...?

[kentuck]

From Wikipedia:

"Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. Generally, prosecutors bear the burden of proof and are required to prove their version of events to this standard."

================

Reasonable doubt is a term used in jurisdiction of common law countries. Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.[1]

Generally, prosecutors bear the burden of proof and are required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. Beyond "the shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with beyond reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered a next to impossible standard (though at times at a trial the person is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, usually in such situations a plea bargain takes place to give the guilty some leniency in exchange for the time and money a trial would cost both sides). The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.

If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. A related idea is Blackstone's formulation "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof in any court in the United States. Criminal cases must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[manor321]

1. Impeachment is a political decision

It is up to Democrats in the House to decide if they want to impeach. Each House member can use any judgement they wish.

[kentuck]

2. Mueller was looking for "crimes".

Right?

[triron]

3. Even Mueller didn't want to go there imo. Trump could have been convicted

by a jury I have little doubt.

[kentuck]

5. I tend to agree.

At least, on obstruction of justice.

[bluestarone]

4. ANY fucking jury would convict tRUMP EXCEPT

This SENATE!

[triron]

7. Exactly why Trump should have been indicted.

Fuck the DOJ guidelines.

[Igel]

11. If Barr misrepresented things to Congress, that's a problem.

Otherwise he said that he and Rosenstein reached their conclusion without having recourse to DOJ guidelines. After that, it goes to what factors he (and Rosenstein) think are necessary to bring charges and the contexts for most of what would have to be the evidence.

Mueller also didn't say, "I find evidence to indict, but decide not to based on DOJ guidelines." He said he failed to find enough evidence to indict. That's a bar rather lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt," making for less room for speculation.


People are seriously into shooting the messenger, whether Mueller or Rosenstein, when a day before the Barr report Mueller was the Great Savior and people wanted to have laws tailored to protecting Mueller and Rosenstein.

[kentuck]

6. Trump is guilty as sin.

We have seen it with our own eyes.

The AG and the Special Counsel may believe there is not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

We may believe otherwise?

If the House refuses to impeach, the Senate will never have the opportunity to convict. We assume we know the answer already.

[soryang]

8. A prima facie case is enough to go forward with a prosecution

Whether it is enough to satisfy the finder of fact, judge or jury, as to whether the evidence adduced meets the reasonable doubt standard of proof is dependent on their judgment concerning any other evidence to the contrary and/or arguments made at trial concerning the weight of the evidence.

[kentuck]

9. But unless they are certain that the jury will convict...

...they should just forget about it, right?

[soryang]

10. Prosecutors are typically quite aggressive

So, I think I understand the sarcasm. If the defense raises reasonable doubt as an issue pre-trial, the prosecution almost invariably says "fine let's go to trial, and see."

If there is a prima facie case they prosecute. A prima facie case alone places the accused in jeopardy. Usually that's quite enough to move the case along. A reluctance to prosecute a prima facie criminal case is usually the result of other factors having nothing to do with the facts of the case. Social status of the victim, political connections, improper relationship with the prosecution or judge etc.

[hedda_foil]

14. They're not going to use that standard for a sitting President.

Particularly when it defies DOJ guidelines.

[TwilightZone]

12. Reasonable doubt doesn't apply.

First, impeachable offenses are whatever enough members of the House determine them to be.

Second, you're quoting Wikipedia re: trials and criminal convictions. That's irrelevant to the situation if the Senate refuses to hold a trial, which they undoubtedly would.

[kentuck]

13. Can they constitutionally not hold a trial if the House impeaches?

I think a vote is required ?

I could be wrong, but it doesn't matter. Let the Republicans own all of Trump's crimes.