Arp the Supreme Court of Canada stated that proof beyond a reasonable doubt
will be required "in those certainly rare occasions when admission of the evidence may itself have a conclusive effect with respect to guilt.
33) Whether this decline results from the change in jury instructions, or whether it results independently of that change is not important for the core observation: both the standard of proof stated by judges and the standard of proof applied by jurors appear to be weaker than what was understood to be required by proof beyond a reasonable doubt
at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
After reviewing the current case law on the constitutionality of jury instructions on reasonable doubt, Justice O'Connor stated that the constitutional question presented by the consolidated cases of Victor and Sandoval was "whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instructions to allow conviction based on proof insufficient to meet the Winship standard"(111) of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, noted that both the Fifth Amendment right to be convicted only on proof beyond a reasonable doubt
and the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial were at stake, and that the harmless error analysis applied by the Louisiana Supreme Court deprived Sullivan of his jury trial right.
While Mullinax has a ``reasonable cause to believe'' crimes were committed, prosecutors said, the same evidence failed to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt
, which must be met in a criminal prosecution.
A `strong suspicion' is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt
,'' he said.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
is what is required (for a conviction).
The simple truth of the matter is there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt
,'' Powell said.