What Is Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest burden of proof in the American legal system and the one that applies in most criminal cases. It means the evidence presented must be so convincing that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational person that the defendant committed the crime and is guilty.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not require absolute certainty, but it does mean that the prosecution must eliminate any reasonable alternative explanation. If the judge or jury has any reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant committed the crime they are accused of, they must acquit.

What Is the Burden of Proof?

The burden of proof is a legal concept that refers to who is responsible for proving a claim in court. The burden of proof has two key elements:

• The Burden of Production refers to the duty to present evidence in support of the claim. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor must present evidence that the crime occurred and that the defendant committed it.
• The Burden of Persuasion is the duty to convince the judge or jury of the truth of the claim. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must prove their claim beyond a reasonable donut.

What Does Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Mean?

The best way to understand proof beyond a reasonable doubt is by comparing it to other legal standards.

• A Preponderance of the Evidence is the lowest burden of proof and applies in most civil cases. It means a judge or jury thinks it is more likely than not that something happened. Lawyers often use the example of two equal stacks of paper. If there is just one more sheet of paper in one stack than the other, the plaintiff has met their burden of proof.
• Clear and Convincing Evidence is the middle burden of proof. It is more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than beyond reasonable doubt. The party that bears the burden of proof must present evidence that shows it is highly likely and substantially more probable that a fact in question occurred. The clear and convincing evidence standard often applies in administrative court cases, such as a prisoner seeking habeas corpus from capital punishment.
• Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the highest burden of proof in the American legal system. It means that there is no plausible reason to believe something occurred in a different way. Once the judge or jury has heard all the evidence, if there is a real doubt about whether someone did the thing they are accused of doing, the burden has not been met. Put another way, the prosecution must show that there is no other logical explanation other than that the defendant committed the crime.

The Constitution Requires Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt in Criminal Cases

The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments establish that a criminal defendant can only be found guilty upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Fifth Amendment states that someone accused of a crime is protected from “conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.”

While judges must instruct the jury to apply the standard of proof, there is no requirement that they provide a quantifiable definition of what reasonable doubt is.

What Is an Example of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

Suppose Alex is on trial for robbery. The prosecutor must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Alex committed the crime.

Insufficient Proof

Suppose the prosecution’s only evidence is:

• Alex was near the crime scene.
• Witnesses say they think they saw Alex but they are unsure.
• No fingerprints, surveillance footage, or stolen items link Alex to the robbery.

In this case, the jury should acquit because there is reasonable doubt as to whether Alex committed the crime. Someone else could have done it.

Sufficient Proof (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt)

The prosecution can likely meet its burden by presenting evidence that:

• Surveillance footage shows Alex inside the store at the time of the robbery.
• Multiple witnesses identify Alex as the robber.
• Police officers testify they found stolen money hidden inside Alex’s house.
• Alex’s fingerprints are on the weapon used to commit the crime.

Here, there is no reasonable explanation that someone other than Alex committed the crime. A rational juror would not have a reasonable doubt that Alex committed the robbery, and Alex would likely be found guilty.

The Defendant Has No Burden of Proof

In a criminal trial, the defendant is not required to prove anything. A defendant can call witnesses and present evidence, but they do not need to prove their innocence. A skilled criminal defense attorney will remind the jury that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the defense could choose not to present any evidence or witnesses and still argue for a "Not Guilty" verdict because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Contact Just Criminal Law Today

Just Criminal Law is based in Gillette and serves clients in eastern Wyoming and western South Dakota. Contact our law office today to schedule an appointment to discuss your situation and how we can help.

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this article is offered for educational purposes only. This information is not offered as legal advice. A person accused of a crime should always consult with an attorney before making decisions that have legal consequences.