Time to review evidentiary standards

AS A retired jurist, albeit lower court — a long, long way from the U.S. Supreme Court or for that matter even the state Supreme Court — I can’t tell you the number of times I was faced with “he said-she said” matters, many/ most of which fell into the domestic violence, not necessarily sexual assault, arena. Petitioners ... filing proper paperwork seeking injunctions, giving sworn testimony on one hand and respondents offering sworn testimony on the other, most of the time with no witnesses other than the opposing parties. Oh, how I abhorred these proceedings — HE SAID-SHE SAID at its worst. Bruising and facial scratches certainly weighed on my mind during the decision making process — but often there was no such physical evidence. Written reports by police officers were sometimes available but not always. And, of course, those reports were finalized some time after the fact. Witnesses to the purported act(s), nope — not the vast majority of the time. My job was to listen and determine the veracity of the courtroom testimony. I would be less than candid if I stated that courtroom body language and demeanor weren’t also taken into account. Was I ever fooled? I’m sure that I was. But I did the best that I could, and I probably erred on the side of caution from time to time — better safe than sorry and I could sleep at night.

And now, dear U.S. senators, you very recently found yourselves in a similar quandary at the (Judge Brett) Kavanaugh hearings. I sympathize — except for those of you who so obviously politicized the process — and to those of you who did I say: Hope YOU can’t sleep at night! For those of the rest of us I suggest a careful review of U.S. evidentiary standards — preponderance of the evidence, etc., etc. — and better yet a sincere attempt to understand the difference between the terms “not guilty” vs. “innocent.”

T.B. FULLER Bernalillo