reasonable doubt


Also found in: Medical, Wikipedia.

Reasonable Doubt

A standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding.

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the defendant's death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.

Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on "a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."

The reasonable doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant. If a prosecutor or defendant objects to a piece of evidence, the objecting party must come forward with evidence showing that the disputed evidence should be excluded from trial. Then the trial judge decides to admit or exclude it based on a preponderance of the evidence presented. A similar procedure employing a preponderance standard is used when a party challenges a variety of evidence, such as coerced confessions, illegally seized evidence, and statements extracted without the furnishing of the so-called Miranda warning.

The reasonable doubt standard is inapplicable to still other phases of a criminal prosecution. Lower standards of proof are permissible in Parole revocation proceedings, proceedings to revoke Probation, and prison inmate disciplinary proceedings.

Further readings

Boyce, Ronald N., and Rollin M. Perkins. 1999. Criminal Law and Procedure. New York: Foundation Press.

Devitt, Edward James, and Charles B. Blackmar. 1977. Federal Jury Practice and Instructions. 3d ed. Vol. 1.

Cross-references

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt; Clear and Convincing Proof; Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Due Process of Law; Preponderance of Evidence.

reasonable doubt

n. not being sure of a criminal defendant's guilt to a moral certainty. Thus, a juror (or judge sitting without a jury) must be convinced of guilt of a crime (or the degree of crime, as murder instead of manslaughter) "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the jury will be told so by the judge in the jury instructions. However, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable. It is more difficult to convict under that test, than "preponderance of the evidence" to decide for the plaintiff (party bringing the suit) in a civil (non-criminal) trial. (See: preponderance of the evidence)

reasonable doubt

see BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
References in periodicals archive ?
Scottish Secretary David Mundell said:These improvements will strengthen the Scotland Bill and put beyond any reasonable doubt for any reasonable person that the Government is delivering the Smith Agreement exactly as we promised we would.
Simply put, reasonable doubt is a standard that is used by security forces in order to collect evidence where the probability that the suspect committed the crime is higher than that of his innocence as well as a standard of obtaining evidence by means of search.
If the defendant did not prove (insert appropriate burden of persuasion) that the office of the sheriff misinformed [him][her] or otherwise prevented [him] [her] from complying, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In fact, I think reasonable doubt swallows the case, totally engulfs it.
I determined that I was no longer convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that I knew what happened - not that something didn't happen, but whether we, as an office, knew beyond a reasonable doubt what happened," Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said.
Judge Shaw began by acknowledging the difficulty of the task at hand, telling the jury reasonable doubt was a term "often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined.
From the evidence that we have as to the circumstances of his death, in particular the aspect of haemorrhage, we do not believe that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he killed himself.
But once self defence is claimed it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not in fact self defence.
But the charge was dropped after the prosecution conceded it could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the heart condition which triggered Mr Hilland's death had occurred after Hall tried to hit him.
It said, "There are not in Canadian law two kinds of acquittals: those based on the Crown having failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and those where the accused has been shown to be factually innocent.
It claimed though much of the evidence was circumstantial, it would, in its entirety, prove beyond reasonable doubt the accused killed his wife.
The statement of that one witness gives grounds for reasonable doubt.