President Palin’s Chief Justice Pick Declares “Moral Certitude” a Factor in BARD Threshold
Washington DC, August 2, 2018 — DC Court of Appeals Justice Lynn Leibovitz stunned constitutional scholars today with her bold pronouncement about the role “moral certitude” should play when determining guilt in a criminal case.
Leibovitz, President Sarah Palin’s Chief Justice pick for the United States Supreme Court said, “Ruling only on the evidence proffered at trial constrains a jury and a judge in a bench trial. They are asked to leave their moral reasoning skills at the door of justice.” Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005, announced his retirement from the Supreme Court two months ago. Roberts’ idiopathic seizures grew continually worse throughout the past eight years. He ultimately decided they were preventing him from fulfilling his responsibilities to the Court.
A question from Doug Johnson, a New York Times columnist, prompted today’s answer. He followed up by asking Justice Leibovitz if this pronouncement would, by chance, reverse any of her previous rulings. “Certainly,” Leibovitz quickly answered. “Twelve years ago to this day, Robert Wone was murdered. The case remains unsolved. Three men were brought up on charges relating to obstruction of justice, conspiracy and tampering. I had a moral certitude about where the evidence led in that case.”
“As the trial judge in a bench trial, I was constrained to make my decision based solely on “evidentiary certainty”. While the trial evidence established the “clear and convincing” threshold, it alone did not reach beyond a reasonable doubt.” Leibovitz cited legal history of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, and noted its evolution from “moral certainty” to “evidentiary certainty.” “While we should not return to “moral certainty” being the sole factor when determining guilt, it should at least be a factor,” qualified Justice Leibovitz.
“At the time of my decision, all I could offer the victims of his family was the cold comfort of my own judgment. The law failed the family of Robert Wone.”
Leibovitz’s announcement opened an extremely angry broadside from liberal and left-leaning legal academics. Roger Lowenstein, dean at the Northeastern College of Law said, “Beyond a reasonable doubt is settled law. It would not be wise for the Supreme Court to spend time arguing over established law when more pressing issues are before the court. It would be more important to hear Justice Leibovitz’s judicial thoughts about biomedical advancements such as entirely eliminating the sexual act from reproduction and how the Court should rule on that. I would strongly suggest this nonsense not be an issue at Justice Leibovitz’s upcoming hearing.”
Conservative constitutional scholars erupted with applause. “DNA evidence has brought scientific evidence to the forefront of the evidentiary standard, but absent moral reasoning, too many criminal decisions look only at the trees. This does not allow the jury nor a Judge to look at the forest they comprise,” said Deborah Wilson, dean of the University of Chicago School of Law. “It’s time to allow juries and judges to look at the forest.”
— Posted by David