Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:20:37 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Just for fun.
"Annette Gordon-Reed, a law professor, has suggested in her various books that she thinks she could convict
Jefferson in a court of law."
If "A. G-R" were trying TJ in today's court, it would be indeed might be a cakewalk as she would only have to show
by "a preponderance of the evidence" to win a civil judgment in favor of her "plaintiff" - assuming the trial is
about trying to establish a liaison not the commission of an unlawful act.
If "A. G-R" were trying TJ in a criminal court of his times, I suspect she would fail to convince a jury "beyond a
resonable doubt, not every doubt, but a reasonable doubt" and the supposed "victim's" complaint would probably
fail.
So there's the "muddle". Is it the goal to convict for a specific act on or about in the country of the
Commonwealth or to establish a relationship for purposes of ascertaining what might have been?
From the post I have read, it's about the latter.
How's that for something for everybody?
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|