The standard of proof (hereinafter, SoP) in criminal trials in the United States is, I have just claimed, a mess. It is not only ill defined, but it smacks of the arbitrary. Why, one is moved to ask, should it be set at the level of BARD – assuming we knew where that was – rather than still higher or much lower? As we saw in the last chapter, the Supreme Court said in Winship that due process requires BARD, nothing more and nothing less. That is daft. What due process (understood as fairness and the right not to be subjected to capricious or unreasonable demands or restrictions) implies is that the same SoP – whatever it may be – be brought to bear in all similar cases.