Beyond a Reasonable Doubt in Legal Terms

For Supreme Court cases relating to this legal standard, see Patterson v. New York and Mullaney v. Wilbur. To argue for acquittal, a defense lawyer will point out that the accused has nothing to prove. In fact, an accused could go through an entire trial without naming a single witness or presenting an ounce of evidence, arguing after the prosecution`s calm that the prosecutor had failed to prove the accused`s guilt without a doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt, the legal burden of proof is necessary to confirm a conviction in criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings, the onus is on the Crown to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the guilt of the accused to reach a guilty verdict. This standard of proof is much higher than the civil standard, which is called the “preponderance of evidence” and requires only more than 50% certainty. Criminal prosecutions in criminal matters generally bear the burden of proof and are required to prove their case without any doubt.

This means that for an accused to be convicted, the arguments presented by the prosecution must be sufficient to dispel any reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury as to the guilt of the crime of which he is accused. The term “reasonable doubt” can be criticized for having a circular definition. As a result, courts that rely on this standard of proof often rely on additional or complementary measures, such as specific jury instructions, that simplify or qualify what is meant by “reasonable doubt” (see below for examples). The principle of requiring criminal prosecution to be proven beyond any doubt (as opposed to the weighting of probabilities) goes back to Blackstone`s formulation that “it is better for ten guilty people to escape than for an innocent person to suffer”, that is, if there is any doubt that a person is guilty, it is better for him to be acquitted than to risk, that an innocent person is convicted. Unfortunately, federal courts of appeal have repeatedly used Justice Stewart`s second version of a constitutional standard to verify allegations that the reasonable standard of doubt was not met. As shown in the table below, at the end of 2018, the phrase “any rational Trier of facts” was used in the overwhelming majority of criminal appeals challenging the constitutional adequacy of the evidence, and the phrase “could reasonably support a guilty verdict” had rarely been used. Some judges tell a jury that reasonable doubt is “a doubt based on reason.” [xix] This development has three shortcomings. First, it contradicts the idea that a juror should have the right to vote “not guilty” simply because of an instinctive feeling, without articulated reasoning.

[xx] Second, it can be confusing as to whether the juror has a doubt as to why a reason can be conceived in his or her mind, or a doubt that the juror may express to other jurors. [xxi] Third, it could prompt a jury to turn to the accused for an explanation. [xxii] The phrase “on the basis of reason” has drawn some criticism, particularly in an earlier period. [xxiii] In Jackson v. Virginia[xxiv], the Supreme Court stated that “a reasonable doubt is at least based on reason.” [xxv] [xix] See, for example, United States v. Johnson, 343 U.S. 5, 6 n.1 (2d Cir. 1965), cited with approval in Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S.

356, 360 (1972); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317 n.9 (1979); 1. Leonard B. Sand et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, ¶ 4.01, Instruction 4-2 (1993). The model manual of some circuits uses different variants of this formulation. See, for example, 3rd Circuit: “A reasonable doubt is a just doubt based on reason, logic, common sense, or experience.”; 5. Kreis: “A `reasonable doubt` is a doubt based on reason and common sense after a careful and impartial examination of all the evidence in the case.”; 6th circle: “A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense.”; 11th Circle: “A `reasonable doubt` is a real doubt based on your reason and common sense after carefully and impartially considering all the evidence in the case.” ADJ.part jury orders in all criminal trials in which jurors are informed that they can only convict the accused if they are found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sometimes called “moral certainty,” the term is fraught with uncertainty of meaning, but try, “You`d better be damn safe.” In comparison, it is said to be a stricter standard than “preponderance of evidence,” which is used as a test to render a verdict to a plaintiff in a civil (not criminal) case. (See: reasonable doubt, moral certainty, conviction) Defence lawyers in the Irish treason cases of 1798[ix] lobbied for the adoption of the standard of reasonable doubt, believing that this would effectively increase the prosecutor`s burden of persuasion. [x] On the other hand, some prosecutors lobbied for the adoption of the same standard during this period, believing that it would effectively reduce their burden of having to convince the jury of guilt without a doubt. [xi] Ultimately, it was recognized that evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” was needed, not to spare jurors the risk of damnation for the conviction of an innocent person, but to reduce the risk of an innocent person being convicted.