Speech #910285386

Had my colleagues probed a little further. they would have found a decision of the Supreme Court. Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 385 U.S. 277 and Schneiderman v. U.S.. 320 U.S. 118. which hold that the standard of "clear. unequivocal and convincing evidence" is based upon "the principle that vested rights can be cancelled only upon clear. unequivocal and convincing proof." In the Woodby case. the petitioners argued that the appropriate burden of proof in deportation proceedings should be that which the law imposes in criminal casesthe duty of proving the essential facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The Government. on the other hand. pointed out that a deportation proceeding is not a criminal case and that the appropriate burden of proof should consequently be the one generally imposed in civil cases and administrative proceedingsthe duty of prevailing by a mere preponderance of the evidence. The Supreme Court in weighing this argument said: To be sure. a deportation proceeding is not a criminal prosecution but It does not syllogistically follow that a person may be banished from this country upon no higher degree of proof than applies in. a negligence case. While a shareholders derivative suit against an investment adviser or the officers and directors of a mutual fund alleging breach of fiduciary duty is a civil action. it can result in the defendant being banished from the securities industry. It can destroy his reputation and his credit.