I received a response to my question. A reasonable person is not what " a good reason to believe" is define as. If that were the case then you can have a jury decide these CPO cases. At least in the DC jurisdiction that is not an option. Back to square one.
You know what I think about that? Tell it to Superior Court Judge Harold Haley. I'm sure he wished what you said was true. (Note: I don't condone what happen. I believe there is a better way of eradicating injustice)
Whether appeal or trial, the issue is show me where i.e. case, statute or otherwise, where they show you how a Judge makes a determination to issue a CPO base on "a good cause to believe".
And a judge is not consider a reasonable person when the appeal reviews the trial courts determination based on its "good reason to believe" Think about it.
Here the issue, when you appeal a CPO, that court says, we affirm the lower court because the lower court look at the totality of the facts and made a decision because it had a "good reason to believe" and we, the court, will only change such a decision if the lower court made an error in law...
Well the only difference between my phrase "good cause to believe" and what you say it means is the "felt" If you are saying it means what the Judge "felt" I'll look it up in Black's Law Dictionary and see if it list any cases to get a clearer meaning of the term. Don't think you're incorrect. I...
That is correct if it's tort you are dealing with. But the standard the DC courts use in deciding to grant a civil protection order under the intrafamily act is "good reason to believe" that an offense was committed. Can't use reasonable people here otherwise they would allow juries decide these...
Like reasonable, reasonable person are relative terms. When a court uses such terms it supports such terms by quoting cases illustrating what it means when using such relative terms if it cannot define such relative terms. I don't use relative terms to define a relative term