What is reasonable doubt?
If you are being prosecuted or just investigated for a crime, you may have heard that you must be proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” You may be wondering what this phrase means and how it differs from other terms you have heard such as “beyond a shadow of a doubt” or “a preponderance of the evidence.” While all of these terms describe the level of proof that the prosecution must prove for the defendant in a crime to be found guilty, since defendants in are considered innocent until proven guilty, the terms have different meanings and are used in different types of court cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in the legal system of the United States. Reasonable doubt is the standard used in criminal proceedings, whether the crime being considered is a felony or a misdemeanor. Because criminal proceedings can be serious in nature, the prosecution is held to this higher standard of proof than in other types of court cases, such as civil trials, to help better protect the rights of the defendant. Proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt means that when a reasonable person views the case and the evidence that has been presented by the prosecution, that person can only reasonably conclude that the defendant committed the crime. This does not mean that the person can have absolutely no doubts about what happened, only that those doubts must not be considered reasonable or likely. Beyond a reasonable doubt is often used interchangeably in the general population with the phrase beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, beyond a shadow of a doubt is technically an even higher standard of proof than is beyond a reasonable doubt. Proving a case beyond a shadow of a doubt means that there can be no doubt on the issue whatsoever. Many consider this standard of proof an impossible level of proof to achieve in a court case, and it is not used as the burden of proof for the prosecution in any types of crimes in the United States. Preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof required in a civil trial. A preponderance of the evidence is a lesser burden of proof and simply means that it has been proven that it is more likely than not that the defendant is guilty. More likely than not can literally mean that there is a greater than 50% chance that it is true. This burden of proof leaves a lot more room for doubt than does beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the reason that a defendant who is tried for a single act in both a criminal and a civil case may be found not guilty for the crime but guilty in the civil trial. If you are being investigated or prosecuted for a crime, while you are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it is important to have a criminal defense attorney on your side. A criminal defense attorney will have the training and experience necessary to understand your situation and the various avenues to prevent you from being found guilty of a crime. This often involves presenting evidence on your behalf at various phases throughout the legal process. First this can be evidence provided to the police before they have filed criminal charges against you, in a attempt to keep you from ever being prosecuted in the first place. Next, it can be evidence presented after criminal charges have been filed against you but before the case has gone to trial, in an attempt to have the charges against you dropped. Finally, it can be evidence given during a trial, in an attempt to create reasonable doubt in the eyes of the court so that you are found not guilty. If you complete the short form found at http://www.criminaldefensehome.com/eval_bar.php, a lawyer will review your case free of charge and with no further obligation to you. This review is 100% confidential, so please take this opportunity to have a professional review your situation to help you make the best decision for you.
What can I do to establish reasonable doubt in my case?
