Is it logical to conclude
1.
that a trier-of fact has reasonably and rationally
the "beyond a reasonable
applied
doubt" standard as
contemplated
under Jackson v. Virginia
when:
(a) the
alleged victin of a
child sexual assult
testifies
that he or she is unsure the offense
occurred;
(b) the child believes the offense in
question to
be the product of
dreams: and
() the child testifies
as such?
SI
due process under the Fourteenth Amendment
offended
a.
when the State or Goverment proffers
alleged
out-of.
an
statement, to have been made
court
by
a
child sexual
assult victin,
through
member of
the
prosecutorial
a
team
when :
The
statutory
(a)
requirements, under
code of criminal
procedures, are not strictly
adheard to :
(b) the
State or Goverment failes to
offer any proof as to the
e validity of the
proffered
statementi and
(c)
effectively
does this
deny
the
full and fair opportunity
defendant
U
to
crossstatement of the
examine the
prosecutorial
fact finder
team, when the
is
given no proof
that the child made any statement at all?

Whether the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard was reasonably and rationally applied when the alleged victim of child sexual assault testified they were unsure the offense occurred, the child believes the offense was the product of dreams, and the child testified as such