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!
Transcription by:
Scribe4you Transcription Services