What Is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest burden of proof in the United States’ justice system and means that the judge or jury must have a very high degree of certainty before convicting the defendant. Different jurisdictions have different definitions.

Introduction 

You may be familiar with the fact that a prosecutor must prove a charge “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Over time, case law has affirmed this standard. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). But did you know that this requirement is not written in the U.S. Constitution? This article will explore the origin of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” what standards of proof there are in criminal cases, and what the burden of proof is.

Historical Origin

The origin of “beyond a reasonable doubt” dates back to the seventeenth century European common law. In the seventeenth century, jurors were terrified of wrongfully convicting a defendant, as they believed it would result in the damnation of their souls. As legal historian James Q. Whitman explains in his book The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial (Yale University Press, 2008), the standard was originally aimed to “satisfy” jurors’ “conscience.” The standard appeased jurors by asserting that if they had no reasonable doubt to convict the defendant, then they were not committing a sin. Therefore, it is argued that the reasonable doubt standard was originally designed to protect the juror rather than the defendant. Since then, perceptions of the reasonable doubt standard have evolved. Today, the reasonable doubt standard reflects the defendant’s constitutional right to due process. Due process requires that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What Is The Burden of Proof?

The burden of proof refers to who must prove a claim. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Meeting The Burden

Two tools that can be used to meet the burden of proof are inference and presumption. An inference is a conclusion that may be made, but is not required. For example, if a prosecutor shows a video of the defendant kicking the victim after screaming at them, the jurors may make the inference that the kick was intentional. Or, the jurors may not. However, a presumption is a conclusion that must be made. The best example is the presumption of innocence. Another presumption is the presumption of sanity. Jurors are required to accept that the defendant is sane, unless the defense proves insanity. 

Types of Evidence 

The evidence used to meet the burden of proof can be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence includes eyewitness testimony that the witness saw the defendant commit the crime, or a confession by a defendant that he or she committed the crime. Direct evidence is used to directly prove facts. By contrast, circumstantial evidence requires inferences in order to prove a claim. Circumstantial evidence includes fingerprints, DNA, a suspect fleeing a scene, and more.

The Standards of Proof

The reasonable doubt standard is the highest standard of proof (or burden) to meet. The prosecutor always has to prove the criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Generally, the defendant does not have to prove anything because they are considered innocent until proven guilty. A defendant can wait for the prosecutor to fail to meet their burden. However, sometimes a defendant may have a burden of production and/or persuasion where the defense decides to present an affirmative defense such as self-defense or duress.  

The Burden and The Defense

The elements of the criminal charge matter because every element has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (see Criminal Elements) Therefore, challenging whether the elements have been met to that standard can contribute to an effective defense strategy. (see Criminal Defenses)

Conclusion 

In sum, the burden of proof in criminal law refers to the burden faced by the government, who is prosecuting the defendant. The standard of proof that the government must meet is beyond a reasonable doubt. The tools to meet the burden of proof include inference, presumption, circumstantial evidence, and direct evidence. The most important presumption in a criminal case is that the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until the prosecution proves the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.