A Discussion of Quantification of Proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt

• • 
    

    • Select this article
      • Peter Tillers and
       
      • Jonathan Gottfried

    Case comment—United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): A Collateral Attack on the Legal Maxim That Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Is Unquantifiable?

    Law, Probability and Risk (June 2006) 5(2): 135-157 doi:10.1093/lpr/mgl015
    • Abstract
     
    • Full Text (HTML)
     
    • Full Text (PDF)
     
    • Permissions
  • Select this article
    • James Franklin

    Case comment—United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): quantification of the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard

    Law, Probability and Risk (June 2006) 5(2): 159-165 doi:10.1093/lpr/mgl017
    • Abstract
     
    • Full Text (HTML)
     
    • Full Text (PDF)
     
    • Permissions
  • Select this article
    • Jack B. Weinstein and
     
    • Ian Dewsbury

    Comment on the meaning of ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’

    Law, Probability and Risk (June 2006) 5(2): 167-173 doi:10.1093/lpr/mgl016
    

    • Abstract
     
    • Full Text (HTML)
     
    • Full Text (PDF)
     
    • Permissions

• 
  

• Jon O. Newman

Quantifying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt: a comment on three comments

Law, Probability and Risk (2006) 5(3-4): 267-269 doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm010

• Full Text (PDF)
 
• Permissions

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post and this post.