I’ve been out of the States for quite a while; has the standard of proof changed?
[quote]Different standards of proof are commonly used to resolve disputed issues in the criminal justice process. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence simply means proof sufficient to establish that it is more likely than not that a contested fact or event occurred. Clear and convincing evidence requires more proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard but less than is required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The highest burden of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While this is well known as the standard that must be satisfied to convict a person of a criminal offense, prior to 1970 the Supreme Court had never explicitly so ruled. Ironically, the Court did not make this announcement in a criminal case but in a juvenile deliquency case involving a 12-year-old boy.
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed. 2d 368 (1970)[:]
[quote]* * *
Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable-doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.[/quote][/quote]-- James R. Acker and David C. Brody, [i]Criminal Procedure: A Contemporary Perspective[/i], 2nd edition (2004), pp. 516-517 (The bracketed colon and the asterisks to indicate ellipsis are mine; the italics are in the original.)