Court Opinion

ID: 9476193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:49:47.948579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:10.629512
License: Public Domain

OAKES, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result.
I do not think this opinion should go beyond holding that all that the due process clause requires is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. I think we may very well want to hold at some future time in some other context that proof by clear and convincing evidence is required as a matter of policy. See, e.g., Note, A Proposal to Ensure Accuracy in Presentence Investigation Reports, 91 Yale L.J. 1225, 1245 nn. 115-17 (1982). As note 117 points out, this is the standard of proof required in analogous situations by the Supreme Court. See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 433, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1813, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (involuntary civil commitment hearing).