Courts have occasionally said that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves the trier with a firm and abiding conviction (belief) about the fact in issue.

Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690 (1988) ("In determining whether the Government has introduced sufficient evidence to meet Rule 104(b), the trial court neither weighs credibility nor makes a finding....Evidence of a condition upon which the relevance of evidence depends is sufficient if a reasonable trier (such as a jury) can find by a preponderance of the evidence that the condition exists.

United States v. Gonzalez, 533 F.3d 1057, 1061-1063 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence the officer's retelling of Tirado's story as prior consistent statement because "the retelling....A prior statement of a witness is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence if the prior statement is consistent with the witness' testimony at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered, the prior statement is offered to rebut a express or implied charge of recent fabrication or motive, and the witness who made the prior statement testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered.

Processteel Inc. v. Mosley Machinery Co., 421 F.2d 1074, pin? (6th Cir. 1970).A view (by jury or, in bench trial, by trial judge) is not evidence.