what does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?
In: 7
It means where any doubt left isn’t reasonable in light of the evidence that has been presented.
Reasonable doubt:
A video shows someone who might be the defendant committing a crime. However, the video is blurry and hard to make out. It would be reasonable to question if this is enough evidence to convict.
Beyond a reasonable doubt:
A very high detailed video shows the defendant committing a crime. The defendant’s face is clearly shown and looks exactly like them. The height, build, etc of the person in the video matches the defendant. The defence though argued that maybe aliens cloned the defendant. This claim gives doubt but without evidence of these aliens it isn’t beyond a reasonable doubt.
Comparison to another evidentiary standard might be helpful. In some civil cases, the standard is “preponderance of the evidence” that burden of proof is met if it’s more than a 50% chance that something is true.
There was a relatively famous case in the UK where the jury were dismissed after asking the judge all sorts of basic questions, including “what is reasonable doubt?”.
On the reasonable doubt question the judge wasn’t very sympathetic and said: “A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable, these are ordinary English words that the law doesn’t allow me to help you with beyond the written directions I have already given.”
(Google ‘Vicky Pryce jury’ if you are interested in reading more).
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of proof jurors in the United States must use to convict someone in a criminal trial. Essentially, it means that there can’t be any other *reasonable* explanation other than that the person actually committed the crime.
Ok I’m officially leaving this discussion. Just watch the movie 12 Angry Men. It’s a great movie and it’ll give you a great understanding of “beyond a reasonable doubt”
There is another case from the UK which raises serious questions about the reasonable doubt aspect of the trial. The Cardiff three were convicted of the murder of Lynette White. The actual culprit (Gafoor) was seen by several witnesses sitting down near the scene of the crime covered from head to toe in her blood. The Cardiff three were eventually acquitted on appeal, and Gafoor was convicted.
Then what does “burden of proof” mean?
One simple comparison I’ve heard to define the limits of reasonable is when the thought of well some supernatural event could have occurred to cause this.
If you’re thinking aliens could have stabbed him its unreasonable. If you’re thinking maybe the other guy stabbed him that’s reasonable.
*”A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn’t allow me to help you with beyond the written directions that I have already given.”*
Justice Sweeney in the [Chris Huhne case](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460#:~:text=Mr%20Justice%20Sweeney%20said%3A%20%22A,that%20I%20have%20already%20given.%22) ten years ago. In that case, the jury got into such a terminological muddle they asked a load of questions to the judge Sweeney, who called a mistrial and had a second trial with a new jury. They did convict.
Would a average, reasonable person have questions to ask about this?
If a reasonable person would have questions that either aren’t answered, or have answers that don’t support the version of events presented, then things haven’t been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Keep in mind this reasonable person is fictional, it’s a platonic ideal of what is reasonable that people can agree on, but it varies by the people and the area.
IE: A bag with drugs is found in someone’s car by the police. They say the drugs are not theirs. That they give a lot of people rides, and don’t know who the drugs might belong to.
The prosecution might try to establish the history and character of the accused, to show they are the kind of person that would own a bag of drugs, and trust that the question ‘who else could those drugs belong to?’ isn’t ‘reasonable’ to the jury.
Latest Answers