Member-only story
Face it, Kavanaugh’s guilty
The burden of proof is not “beyond all doubt.”
When I explain to my students the burden of proof in criminal cases, I give them the example of a murderer who claims he could not be guilty because at the time he was kidnapped for experimentation by aliens.
Is it possible? Can you prove with 100% certainty it did not happen? No you cannot, so it is possible.
Is it reasonable? No.
So even if someone made such a claim, the jury could still convict them for the crime they are charged with.
After all, the idea of “guilty” is a legal concept that means that the state has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt — not beyond all doubt, just a reasonable one.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s defenders seem to believe that the burden of proof to be elevated to the Supreme Court — not just in a criminal case — is beyond all doubt. As my students could tell you, such is not the case.
Most cases are proven with what is called “circumstantial evidence” for the simple reason that rarely is there an eyewitness to most crimes. As a result, the defendant is convicted — usually over his or her claims of innocence — based upon a trail of circumstances that at some point seem to represent something more than coincidence.
