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 ?
The petitioners herein failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, in the spectrum of decision-making, proof beyond a reasonable doubt will be closer to the very high level of "absolute certainty" than mere probabilities.
When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt," the (http://legal-dictionary.
The first step is for you to determine whether the aggravating factor[s] alleged by the State [has] [have] been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The test for their decisions is not absolute certainty, but for the verdict they arrive at to be beyond reasonable doubt.
The Secretary of State said the improvements to the Bill put beyond any reasonable doubt, for any reasonable person that the Government has delivered the cross-party Smith agreement.
This Article argues that the beyond a reasonable doubt requirement should not apply to such moral elements for three reasons.
According to its provisions, security forces will be able to use protective measures such as arrest, custody, detention and search and seizure based on reasonable doubt instead of strong doubt.
Ministers want to limit compensation to only those people who can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they "did not commit" the crime they were convicted of.
Disciplinary proceedings against the party's former chief executive were dropped after a QC concluded there was a less than 50% chance the allegations could be proved beyond reasonable doubt, although there was broadly credible evidence of "behaviour which violated the personal space and autonomy of the complainants".
They'd need proof beyond reasonable doubt that the force applied was applied intentionally.