A House committee has three options.
The Select Committee etc. etc. can come to three possible conclusions on Rep. Thomas Wright's guilt based on its standards of proof, as explained by its attorneys to Dome.
* Guilty. The committee can find by "clear and convincing evidence"—the highest civil standard, but below "beyond a reasonable doubt"—that Wright committed the crimes he's accused of and recommend he be expelled.
* Innocent. The committee can find by "a preponderance of evidence"—a slightly lower standard than "clear and convincing evidence"—that Wright did not commit the crimes he's accused of and recommend he be exonerated.
* Unsure. The committee can fail to find "clear and convincing evidence" of guilt but not find "a preponderance of evidence" that he's innocent either.
In the third case, the committee would fail to take action. In other words, a tie means he gets to keep his seat, but his good name isn't restored either.
Comments
Re: More on Wright's standard of proof
December 18, 2007 - 9:18pm — ethanperryTime will tell about Mr. Wright. What's known doens't look good, but the important thing now is for those powers that be to complete investigations and act appropriately.
It is interesting that Mr. Black himself, in his last court appearance, indicated his own behavior wasn't that abnormal from other state officials.
If he is correct and Mr. Wright is as guilty, how many others will follow?
Are the ones doing the investigations just as guilty?