Abstract
This paper analyses the multiple tensions and confusions in appellate-court efforts to explain the criminal standard of proof. It concludes that the ambiguous and highly subjectivist character of the Supreme Court's recent glosses on this conception render it virtually meaningless. It is virtually indistinguishable from a standard saying that any doubt whatever, even inarticulable doubts, can justify an acquittal.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
