$[$Revenge$]$ Kelsie, a first$-$year law student, slipped on a freshly$-$mopped floor while walking to class. She bumped into Burgess, another first$-$year law student, breaking his glasses. He was very angry with Kelsie and slashed all of her car tires, causing damages of $$1,500.$ Burgess also decided to sue Kelsie for negligence claiming damages of $$300$ for his broken glasses. He decided that he already knew all about the law and did not need a lawyer. Burgess sued Kelsie in state court. Kelsie, in the same lawsuit, brought an action against Burgess for slashing her tires. At the trial in state court, Kelsie told the judge that a friend, Aimee, told Kelsie that she saw Burgess slash all of Kelsie's tires. The judge disallowed Kelsie's testimony on that issue. Aimee also came to court and testified about seeing Burgess slashing all of Kelsie$$s tires. The state court judge ruled in favor of Kelsie awarding her $$1,500$ in damages. Burgess said that he was not giving up and that he would seek double damages on appeal in federal court. Kelsie and Burgess live in different states when not attending school. After the trial, Kelsie reported Burgess' action of slashing her tires to the police, who said that they would proceed with a criminal action against Burgess. Burgess goes to see Alex, a recent graduate who had just passed the bar, and asked Alex to represent him in a federal court appeal.

In a criminal case against Burgess, what standard of proof would the judge apply?

Multiple Choice

A preponderance of the evidence standard

A standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt

A standard of proof by a margin

A standard of certainty in proof

A standard of proof beyond a reasonable question