Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JGoren who wrote (54917)	9/1/2006 12:08:06 PM
From: hedgefund	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196986

your legal debate exposes the ugly truth about the law. You're both right; clear and convincing to some juries means the same as or nearly the same as beyond a reasonable doubt and to other juries a midpoint between preponderance of the evidence and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Can't believe folks pay us to be lawyers...

To: JGoren who wrote (54917)	9/1/2006 12:20:28 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 196986

The following is a NJ jury instruction on clear and convincing. In my estimation, it is closer to the "beyond a reasonable" doubt standard than to the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, but you of course are entitled to your opinion. The writer suggests it falls "somewhere between," a suggestion I think is correct but only because it means very little; he was clearly avoiding the discussion as to where exactly in the continuum the standard falls, a discussion which can go on forever. judiciary.state.nj.us And it applies to fraud in NJ, as specifically noted in the discussion. I think the federal standard is the same, though it might be an adopted one if state law claims are involved.