Question

Casey is on trial under criminal allegations that she engaged in fraudulent behavior at the company she manages. She is worried when the plaintiff alleges that it has "unambiguous proof" that Casey is guilty. Which of the following is most likely true?

a. The plaintiff will most likely prove Casey is guilty, since criminal charges only need to meet a prima facie burden of proof.
b. Casey need not worry about the plaintiff's evidence, since parties tend to boast about the level of proof they can establish anyway.
c. If the plaintiff does have unambiguous evidence that meets a "clear and convincing" burden of proof, Casey will most likely be found guilty.
d. If the plaintiff provides proof only up to the level of "clear and convincing," Casey can still be acquitted.

Answer 1

d.

Step-by-step explanation:

In this scenario, If the plaintiff provides proof only up to the level of "clear and convincing," Casey can still be acquitted. This is because "unambiguous proof" means that the evidence being presented against the defendant is not implied but instead 100% proof without a doubt in what it is stating. Therefore, if this "proof" is only up to the level of "clear and convincing," it means that there is still the possibility of convincing the juror that the opposite is instead true.