What Is Reasonable Doubt?
Reasonable doubt is the traditional standard of proof that must be exceeded to secure a guilty verdict in a criminal case in a court of law.
The phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that the evidence presented and the arguments put forward by the prosecution establish the defendant's guilt so clearly that they must be accepted as fact by any rational person.
- Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be exceeded to secure a guilty verdict in a criminal case in a court of law.
- Clear and convincing evidence is somewhat less rigorous as it requires that a judge or jury be persuaded that the facts of the case as presented by one party represent the truth.
- A preponderance of the evidence is the least rigorous standard as it requires only that one party's case be more persuasive after both parties have presented their cases.
- Under U.S. law, everyone who is arrested is "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law.
- The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is accepted in many global courts of law.
Understanding Reasonable Doubt
Under U.S. law, a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. If the judge or jury has a reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt, the defendant cannot be convicted. Simply put, reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in any court of law. It is used exclusively in criminal cases versus civil cases because a criminal conviction could deprive the defendant of liberty or even life. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is widely accepted around the world. The concept of reasonable doubt is imposed only on criminal cases because the consequences of a conviction are severe.
The concept of reasonable doubt is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution. However, one of the basic principles of the U.S. legal system is that it is worse to convict an innocent person than to let a guilty person go free. The person charged is considered innocent until proven guilty. As such, the burden of proof falls upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required only in criminal cases because the potential penalties are severe.
Other Standards of Proof
Other commonly used standards of proof are clear and convincing evidence which is one step above preponderance of the evidence.
- Clear and convincing evidence: The judge or jurors have concluded that there is a high probability that the facts of the case as presented by one party represent the truth. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is used in some civil cases, and it may appear in some aspects of a criminal case, such as a decision on whether a defendant is fit to stand trial. The language appears in several U.S. state laws.
- Preponderance of the evidence: Both sides have presented their cases, and one side seems more likely to be true. Most civil cases require a "preponderance of the evidence," as this is a lower standard of proof.
Presumption of Innocence
In a court of law, the accused is innocent until proven guilty (i.e., there is a presumption of innocence). It is an essential component in the court system and is also considered a human right. The burden of truth falls with the prosecution team and must prove the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial.
The burden of truth means every factor must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before the accused is guilty of a crime.
It is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer."—Benjamin Franklin
Real-World Example of Reasonable Doubt
The 1995 murder trial of O.J. Simpson provides an example of the concept of reasonable doubt in practice. The former football star was accused of the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman. There was substantial incriminating evidence against Simpson, including his DNA at the crime scene and blood in his car.
To counter this mountain of evidence, Simpson assembled a legal “Dream Team” that set about trying to create doubt about his guilt in the jurors’ minds. Their case sought to cast doubt on the validity of the DNA evidence and the integrity of the police officers who investigated the murder.
One of the trial highlights occurred in the courtroom when Simpson tried to pull on a bloody leather glove that had been recovered on his property and showed that his hand could not fit into it. In his closing arguments, lead defense counsel Johnnie Cochran famously declared that “if it does not fit, you must acquit.” Cochran listed 15 points of reasonable doubt in the case. After less than four hours of deliberations, the jury found Simpson not guilty on both counts of murder.
A year later, the families of both victims filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit against Simpson. Based on the lower standard of proof, that of a preponderance of the evidence, the jury found Simpson liable for the deaths and awarded the families $8.5 million in damages.
How Do You Prove Reasonable Doubt?
You prove reasonable doubt by investigating and gathering evidence, including testimony, if appropriate, to prove that an accuser did not commit the crime they are accused of. Lawyers must use all legal avenues to pursue the truth and prove beyond reasonable doubt that their client is innocent.
How Much Doubt Is Reasonable?
It may be hard to answer how much doubt is reasonable because every court case, judge, and jury will weigh all the evidence, and outcomes can take different forms depending on the case. Reasonable doubt means a high degree or level of certainty based on the evidence provided that the accuser is innocent.
What Are the 3 Burdens of Proof?
The three burdens of proof are "beyond a reasonable doubt," "probable cause," and "reasonable suspicion."