Epstein Secrets

error" . . . . It necessarily follows that the Due Process Clause requires that the state prove its case by clear and convincing evidence in a Megan's Law proceeding. E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077, 1111 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1109 (1998) (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 4

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

error" . . . . It necessarily follows that the Due Process Clause requires that the state prove its case by clear and convincing evidence in a Megan's Law proceeding. E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077, 1111 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1109 (1998) (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 4

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

error" . . . . It necessarily follows that the Due Process Clause requires that the state prove its case by clear and convincing evidence in a Megan's Law proceeding. B.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077, 1111 (3d Cir. 1997), art. denial, 622 U.S. 1109 (1998) (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S.

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]