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

privation of liberty or stigma," due process demands "more than average certainty on the part of the factfinder." E.B., 119 F.3d at 1110-11 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756- 58 (1982)). Accordingly, "registrants are entitled to have the burden of persuasion placed on the state, with the state obligate

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. KB.-44-41ernier-o,-14.9a3c1407.7r 1111-(3d-Girr1997), eertreleniedr 622 U.S. 1109 (1998) (citing Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S.

privation of liberty or stigma," due process demands "more than average certainty on the part of the factfinder." E.B., 119 F.3d at 1110-11 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756- 58 (1982)). Accordingly, "registrants are entitled to have the burden of persuasion placed on the state, with the state obligate

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.

eprivation of liberty or stigma," due process demands "more than average certainty on the part of the factfmder." E.B., 119 F.3d at 1110-11 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756- 58 (1982)). Accordingly, "registrants are entitled to have the burden of persuasion placed on the state, with the state obligate