Beyond a Reasonable Doubt to be edited
STANDARD OF PROOF IN A CRIMINAL CASE
In both civil and criminal cases, the defendant is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove to the jury that the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The jury is instructed to deliver a “guilty” verdict only if they are convinced that the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The criminal justice system has established an extremely high standard of proof in criminal cases in order to protect the innocent from being falsely convicted. In a criminal case, if reasonable doubt exists about whether or not someone is guilty, then the person must be considered innocent.
So, what exactly does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?
Reasonable doubt is usually defined as "any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs." In other words, the jury had better be very certain that the defendant is guilty before they convict him or her. The jury needn’t be 100% certain; some amount of doubt is acceptable. A juror should ask, “Is there any way that a reasonable person could possibly think the defendant is innocent?” If the answer is “yes”, then the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury should find the defendant innocent.
For example, a defendant named Sam is under suspicion for robbing a bank and there is a lot of evidence to support his guilt. However, Sam’s employer, a reliable witness, swears under oath that Sam was present at work at the exact day and time of the bank robbery, then a reasonable person would doubt that Sam was responsible for the bank robbery.
How do I determine reasonable doubt?
First, you imagine a reasonable person. Then, you ask if it would be unreasonable to say that the defendant is innocent, based on the evidence provided. Put another way - - would you think a jury has gone completely crazy to think that the defendant is innocent? If so, then that qualifies as “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a little bit of doubt, but not so much for you to think that a reasonable person could say that the defendant is innocent.
Let’s take the previous example about Sam and change it slightly. In addition to the fact that there is a lot of evidence that supports Sam’s guilt, his boss testifies that Sam was conspicuously absent from work at the exact day and time of the bank robbery. The bank also has a videotape that shows someone who looks exactly like Sam robbing the bank. Sam’s wife claims that he was at home with her at the time of the robbery, which casts some doubt as to his guilt. But in light of all the other evidence, it is not enough for a juror to say s/he has sufficient reasonable doubt to find Sam innocent.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.