What Is Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

Website Provided by HG.org

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard that the prosecution must meet in order to successfully find a criminal defendant guilty of a crime. This standard applies to each element of the crime.

Other Standards of Proof

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof possible. Because a person’s liberty is at stake, this high standard is required by the American judicial system. Other standards of proof apply to different types of cases.

For example, some proceedings may only require “clear and convincing” evidence. This standard of proof requires the moving party to show that there is a high probability that the thing being asserted is true.

Another standard of proof is “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires that the moving party show that it is more likely than not that the thing being asserted is true.

Presumption of Innocence

In the United States criminal justice system, individuals are presumed to be innocent. This means that a person is innocent until he or she has proven not to be. It is the prosecution’s job to show that a particular criminal defendant is guilty of a crime. The criminal defendant does not have the job of showing that he or she is innocent. In fact, many cases are won by the simple fact that the prosecution has not met its burden to show that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Types of Doubt

There may be different types of doubts that the jury or fact finder has. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean that there has to be no doubt at all. Additionally, a person may have “unreasonable doubt” and find a person guilty. If a juror finds that there is no reasonable doubt that is possible, he or she must find the defendant guilty.

Origin of Standard

The requirement that a criminal defendant be convicted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt comes from the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Purpose of Standard

Having such a high burden of proof theoretically protects against convictions relying on factual errors. It helps to support the presumption of innocence. When convictions are reviewed upon appeal, the courts must evaluate whether the evidence could reasonably support the guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the appellate court must determine whether any rational juror could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defining Reasonable Doubt

Many states refuse to define this term because they do not want jurors to decide cases based on such a definition. Additionally, appellate courts have overturned verdicts when the jurors were given a definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or when this term was quantified. For example, the Supreme Court has found that defining reasonable doubt as “a substantial doubt,” “a grave uncertainty” or a “moral certainty” violate the Due Process Clause because they require a higher degree of certainty than is actually required for a finding of not guilty. However, if clarifying language is used in the instruction, this may not be a violation of the Due Process Clause.

Holdings of Importance

The United States Supreme Court has held that the defendant does not have to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be convicted of a lesser offense, such as by criminal defendant showing that he was in the heat of passion in order to receive a conviction for manslaughter and not murder.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminal defendant is not insane. However, a state can establish a law that requires a criminal defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Additionally, judges are often permitted to use the preponderance of the evidence standard when considering sentencing factors. However, the Court has also held that a factor proven with less than beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be used to increase the maximum sentence.

Copyright HG.org

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer.

Find a Lawyer

Find a Local Lawyer