Beth Karas

preponderance of the evidence, that's a civil standard, more likely than not, 51% versus 49%, that's civil when you go to, that's why OJ and Robert Blake were found liable in civil court for killing their wives, but they were found not guilty in criminal court because it was a higher standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And then there's clear and convincing evidence, that's not something jurors deal with, that's something like the lawyers and judges will deal with, and then there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a motive, Motive is not an element of the crime, unless it's a bias crime, unless it's a hate crime. Then you have to prove somebody was motivated because of someone's

And then there's clear and convincing evidence, that's not something jurors deal with, that's something like the lawyers and judges will deal with, and then there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a motive, Motive is not an element of the crime, unless it's a bias crime, unless it's a hate crime. Then you have to prove somebody was motivated because of someone's

And then there's clear and convincing evidence, that's not something jurors deal with, that's something like the lawyers and judges will deal with, and then there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a motive, Motive is not an element of the crime, unless it's a bias crime, unless it's a hate crime. Then you have to prove somebody was motivated because of someone's

sexual orientation or religion or race or whatever, but motive is not something prosecutors have to prove, okay? If you can give jurors something to sink their teeth into, like why this would happen, you can argue it, but it's not an element of the crimes, okay? The elements would be like, I don't know, intent, You have to prove that it is the person, right?

sexual orientation or religion or race or whatever, but motive is not something prosecutors have to prove, okay? If you can give jurors something to sink their teeth into, like why this would happen, you can argue it, but it's not an element of the crimes, okay? The elements would be like, I don't know, intent, You have to prove that it is the person, right?

sexual orientation or religion or race or whatever, but motive is not something prosecutors have to prove, okay? If you can give jurors something to sink their teeth into, like why this would happen, you can argue it, but it's not an element of the crimes, okay? The elements would be like, I don't know, intent, You have to prove that it is the person, right?

That they were in the county, you have to prove jurisdiction, and that they had the state of mind, negligent, reckless, intentional, whatever, knowingly, with malice aforethought, whatever. Each state has little variations on the elements, depending on the degree of the crime. And then, did cause the injury, death, or whatever, using A, whatever the weapon is. So that's kind of what elements are.

That they were in the county, you have to prove jurisdiction, and that they had the state of mind, negligent, reckless, intentional, whatever, knowingly, with malice aforethought, whatever. Each state has little variations on the elements, depending on the degree of the crime. And then, did cause the injury, death, or whatever, using A, whatever the weapon is. So that's kind of what elements are.

That they were in the county, you have to prove jurisdiction, and that they had the state of mind, negligent, reckless, intentional, whatever, knowingly, with malice aforethought, whatever. Each state has little variations on the elements, depending on the degree of the crime. And then, did cause the injury, death, or whatever, using A, whatever the weapon is. So that's kind of what elements are.

But you have to prove that it's that person with that state of mind. And sometimes you get hung up on that state of mind because a person's not in their right state of mind. Okay. And that's the insanity defense if at the time of the crime they didn't know right from wrong. That's generally. You don't know right from wrong. You can't conform your conduct to the law.

But you have to prove that it's that person with that state of mind. And sometimes you get hung up on that state of mind because a person's not in their right state of mind. Okay. And that's the insanity defense if at the time of the crime they didn't know right from wrong. That's generally. You don't know right from wrong. You can't conform your conduct to the law.

But you have to prove that it's that person with that state of mind. And sometimes you get hung up on that state of mind because a person's not in their right state of mind. Okay. And that's the insanity defense if at the time of the crime they didn't know right from wrong. That's generally. You don't know right from wrong. You can't conform your conduct to the law.

Or at the time of trial, they're incompetent to stand trial. Like they don't understand the nature of the proceedings. They can't assist in their own defense. It has nothing to do with the state of mind at the time of the crime. It's at the time of trial. So insanity and competency are two very different ones. Insanity is at the time of the crime.

Or at the time of trial, they're incompetent to stand trial. Like they don't understand the nature of the proceedings. They can't assist in their own defense. It has nothing to do with the state of mind at the time of the crime. It's at the time of trial. So insanity and competency are two very different ones. Insanity is at the time of the crime.

Or at the time of trial, they're incompetent to stand trial. Like they don't understand the nature of the proceedings. They can't assist in their own defense. It has nothing to do with the state of mind at the time of the crime. It's at the time of trial. So insanity and competency are two very different ones. Insanity is at the time of the crime.

And competency is whether they can even go forward.

And competency is whether they can even go forward.

And competency is whether they can even go forward.

I wrote my high school graduation paper on the insanity plea. And at the time, I graduated in 2010 from high school. So that one, at the time, I think in my paper, it was most of the time the insanity plea did not work. I think was the conclusion.