The Meaning of ‘Reasonable Doubt’ in Criminal Law

The burden of proof that a defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution’s shoulder in criminal cases. Criminal proceedings tend to have heavy penalties if a defendant is found guilty. Therefore, the law must ensure only guilty people end up in jail and increase the precision with which criminal proceedings determine guilt.

Reasonable Doubt in Trial Courts

The trial court is the court in which first hears a case. If the case is appealed, then the case would move to the appellate court. Most trial court judges are advised to refrain from instructing juries on the standard and meaning of ‘Reasonable Doubt.’ This oversight is a great injustice for many defendants, potentially robbing them of a fair trial. Given that a judge’s interpretation can blur juries’ understanding of reasonable doubt, they must thoroughly explain the purpose of the good doubt standard. This standard ensures that jurors do not sentence innocent men to prison. In addition, establishing the reasonable doubt standard in court ensures due process.

The evidence presented in court against a defendant may not be sufficient to warrant a conviction. However, the acceptable threshold of certainty when determining guilt is at least 95 percent. Being 95 percent sure that a defendant is guilty satisfies the reasonable doubt standard and should be the go-to metric for trial courts and juries.

Reasonable Doubt in Appellate Courts

Appellate courts in the United States must re-examine the facts of a previous case and determine whether due process was followed. The appellate courts also determines the sufficiency of evidence in each case. A five-judge bench in Jackson v. Virginia defined the standard for appellate courts when investigating adherence to due process and whether proof beyond reasonable doubt was achieved in determining guilt.

First, the court must determine if the evidence presented reasonably supports a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, the court must ensure that the rational triers of fact (the judge and jury) establish the fundamental elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Thirdly, due process is denied if no rational trier of fact establishes proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Fourthly, a finding where a rational trier of fact reasonably determined the petitioner committed the crime for which they are accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The ‘reasonable doubt’ standard is used to a high degree in some ways to keep the government honest. The definitions of reasonable doubt, as presented in Jackson v. Virginia, are commonly used as the standard interpretation of reasonable doubt at the appellate level.  

Also Read: The Different Types of Family Law: A Comprehensive Overview

Talk to an Attorney

“Criminal defense lawyers present a defense for accused persons in court.” says attorney Tom Addair. They mandate to disprove the ‘probable cause’ that warrants the charges brought against their client. The American justice system operates under the notion that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, defense lawyers ensure the government does not extend its mandate or abuse power throughout the prosecution.

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Therefore, your lawyer must ensure the government observes due process when determining the guilt of an accused person. Defense lawyers are required to provide a vigorous defense to all clients. This approach to defense ensures that your rights and legal benefits are protected throughout a court case. Contact a defense lawyer and ensure you are well-represented.