<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION &#187; Reasonable Doubt</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/tag/reasonable-doubt/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog</link>
	<description>CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:44:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>OUR TAKE ON THE CASEY ANTHONY VERDICT</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/07/16/our-take-on-the-casey-anthony-verdict/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/07/16/our-take-on-the-casey-anthony-verdict/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:13:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Houston Criminal Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Murder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not guilty verdict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reasonable Doubt]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=625</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lack of Evidence and Reasonable Doubts Lead to Acquittal

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Now that Casey Anthony has been acquitted on the most serious charges resulting from the death of her young daughter, Caylee, and is scheduled for release next week, virtually every media pundit, along with their side-kick “expert” attorneys has had their say about the case.  And now, after one of the jurors chose to flee the state of Florida in fear of retaliation, we also feel compelled to add a few comments—both about the verdict and the conduct of those expert attorneys leading up to and subsequent to the verdict.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/07/16/our-take-on-the-casey-anthony-verdict/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>THE PURPOSE OF REASONABLE DOUBT IN CRIMINAL TRIALS</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/11/the-purpose-of-reasonable-doubt-in-criminal-trials/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/11/the-purpose-of-reasonable-doubt-in-criminal-trials/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drug Defense Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNA exonerations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecutorial misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reasonable Doubt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Conviction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent post we discussed both the history and role of reasonable doubt in criminal trials. We noted and criticized the fact that Texas judges in criminal trials do not, per Texas Court of Criminal Appeals mandate, have to give jurors any instruction as to what constitutes “reasonable doubt.” This, we believe, is one of several reasons why Texas leads the nation in the wrongful conviction of innocent people.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/02/11/the-purpose-of-reasonable-doubt-in-criminal-trials/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WHAT IS REASONABLE DOUBT?</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/01/30/what-is-reasonable-doubt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/01/30/what-is-reasonable-doubt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Houston Criminal Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal defendant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNA exonerations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[erroneous outcomes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moral certainty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reasonable Doubt]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=538</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Another Tool for Preventing Wrongful Convictions:  Texas Needs a Statutory Definition of Reasonable Doubt

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Four decades ago in the case of In re Winship the United States Supreme Court firmly established that, as a matter of due process, a person charged with a criminal offense, including a juvenile as in Winship, can be found guilty only after the prosecution has proven every element of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Supreme Court dated the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” in American jurisprudence to 1798, some eleven years after our Constitution was adopted. Thus, beyond a reasonable doubt has been the degree of persuasion necessary in criminal cases since the early founding of our nation. It has become the very bedrock of our criminal jurisprudence. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter put it in 1952 in Leland v. Oregon: “ … it is the duty of the Government to establish  … guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This notion – basic in our law and rightly one of the boasts of a free society – is a requirement and a safeguard of due process of law in the historical, procedural content of ‘due process.’”]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2011/01/30/what-is-reasonable-doubt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>STANDARDS OF PROOF</title>
		<link>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/01/08/standards-of-proof/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/01/08/standards-of-proof/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>johntfloyd</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Houston Criminal Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exonerations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reasonable Doubt]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/?p=102</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reasonable Doubt; Foundation of a Free Society

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

Every one has heard of the phrase “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” But there are three primary standards of proof: preponderance of evidence; clear and convincing evidence; and reasonable doubt. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed. 1990) provides the definitions of each in order of importance:]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johntfloyd.com/blog/2009/01/08/standards-of-proof/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

