Beyond a reasonable doubt is hard to quantify, but it basically means that the prosecution has removed nearly all doubts as to whether the defendant committed the crime. Many states define reasonable doubt in their codes or in their common law (in their judicial opinions). For example, an Ohio law defines “reasonable doubt” as follows:
“Reasonable doubt” is present when the jurors, after they have carefully considered and compared all the evidence, cannot say they are firmly convinced of the truth of the charge. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. Reasonable doubt is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs or depending on moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of the person’s own affairs.
- What classic definition of beyond a reasonable doubt did Chief Justice Shaw provide?
- What distinguishes criminal law from civil law?
- What is a crime?
- Why is legal language sometimes hard to understand?
- If a party loses, what are his or her legal options?
- What are closing arguments
- What are jury instructions?
- What are briefs?
- What are expert witnesses?
- What happens during a trial?
- Are there any limitations on peremptory challenges?
- Are there other limits on who can be dismissed and not selected as jurors?
- Can attorneys challenge certain jurors?
- What happens at the trial process?
- What is a pre-trial conference?
- What are the rules of civil procedure?
- What is summary judgment?
- What happens if a party will not respond to discovery requests?
- What are the common tools of discovery?
- What happens after a plaintiff files a complaint and a defendant files the answer?
