Legal Advice: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The jury must believe beyond any doubt that is reasonable and rational that the defendant has been proven guilty. Not beyond all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt. There cannot be a reasonable, rational doubt to the guilt. It is very inexact, it is very amorphous, but it means, we are pretty sure. It is interesting because certain things are not capable of a precise definition. You cannot really quantify it. You cannot give it a number. But if you have to quantify it, it probably means, I do not know, probably about an 85 % degree of certainty. I would like to believe that it is higher than 85. We can find people guilty of crimes, send them to jail for a long time, even execute them when we do not know with certainty, but we have to get as close to that as possible, we have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Very different from the civil standard, which is preponderance of the evidence which is 50.1%. I am suing a doctor in malpractice where there was a terrible operation and somebody died and that is an important case, but we are willing to accept to 49% risk of error, meaning, we are going to ask the jury, can you find that the plaintiff persuaded you by a preponderance of the evidence, a little more than 50-50. Beyond a reasonable doubt, a much stronger standard because we are dealing with people’s lives and liberty!