Reasonable Doubt: What is it, and when is it applicable?

Attending court hearings and participating in them is something I have done quite often, because of my work. Many of these have not been jury trials, but many have. When the Judge is giving instructions to the Jury, he typically gives a definition of “reasonable doubt”. There does not appear to be a structured definition for this, because I've noted there are as many definitions as there are Judges and Attorneys.

After instructing the Jury, the Judge asks if there any questions, and inevitably the questions surround the definition of reasonable doubt. On one occasion, after a Jury had been in deliberation for several days, the clerk went to the Judge to tell him the Jurors had requested a written definition of “reasonable doubt”. So it's tough. In that case, there was a hung jury, over what appeared to be confusion, and a comprehensive definition of reasonable doubt. I once heard a Judge simply define it as “a doubt with a reason”. Was that helpful?

The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

www.lectlaw.com...

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems (such as the United Kingdom and the United States). Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. "The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. Reasonable doubt is therefore used.
If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country.

en.wikipedia.org...

What do you guys think? Is reasonable doubt really this confusing? Do you think it needs to be clarified in the same language for all Jurors?

I am posting this in current events, because the Anthony trial refreshed my interest in the topic as well as in the definition of "reasonable doubt", and whether there might have been some confusion as to what constitutes reasonable doubt, and how it should be applied in jury considerations and deliberations.

Your thoughts?

After following the Casey Anthony trial, I would say that it is very difficult. I admire anyone who can do this.....I don't know if I could. Because I don't think I could say someone is NOT guilty, if I believe they are. The law says you have to consider ONLY the evidence, and how you feel means nothing. I have no doubt that Casey Anthony is guilty of at least manslaughter for example..... however, there was not a lot of PHYSICAL evidence. So she walks. If jurors think someone is guilty, but there is only a tiny doubt based on the evidence (no matter how small the doubt is) they MUST say not guilty. That's a very difficult thing to do.

I think the reasonable doubt case can also be used here on ATS regarding this issue IMO.

So many people have convicted her in their own minds with only the MSM reporting to base their decision on.

So if those people were to adhere to reasonable doubt, the facts are these:

1. You weren't there at the scene.

2. You weren't in the court room.

3. You weren't in the jurors box.

4. You didn't get access to all information, DNA evidence and crime scene photos. Much was said to have been withheld from the public.

5. You were given access only to what you were allowed to have access to.

I am in no way proclaiming innocence or guilt in this case. Why?

6. I don't have all the facts and 1-5 applies to me as well.

Rather 1 guilty person be set free than 9 innocent sent to prison. This is why we have this law.

Good Post!

SnF

reply to post by StealthyKat


I'm wondering, however, if this is not where jurors get confused, or are not just wrong, at times.

You don't just examine "doubt", you are also examine REASON. Is there enough reason here, to believe that a crime has occurred and this individual perpetrated it? Would a reasonable person believe a crime occurred and this person perpetrated it?

I appreciate our legal system, but it's not perfect. Sometimes getting stuck on analyzing the meaning of "reasonable doubt" can cause intelligent people to take leave of their common sense.

A reasonable doubt would be doubting that a person committed a crime if they were witnessed to be in another city during the crime.

I don't think that reasonable doubt can be easily defined in a simple manner. It is up to each individual. The same thing that causes you to have doubts, may not be enough to create those same doubts within me. Personal history, and past experiences, will play an important role.


At least that is what I think.
Do you doubt me?



[color=616D7E]Disclaimer: Use of the word 'You' in the previous comment, is not directed at any particular individual. It is directed at you.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


lol, no I don't doubt you.

But your point is exactly what I'm talking about. I think there should be a cut and dried definition and explanation of the term, with complete clarification, leaving no questions about what it means, that is read to all juries, in every trial, and not left to any presiding Judge to give his particular "version" of what it means. It's very, very confusing.

Imagine you're sitting on a jury. There are 20 things that make you think a person is guilty. But then there is one thing that makes you doubt it. You can get so caught up in that one doubt, and your own desire to obey instructions, that confusion sets in, and you wind up making a poor decision, thinking that the one, overrides the 20.

It doesn't. (Unless of course the reason for the doubt is very compelling, and has a tendency to override other testimony).

Originally posted by filosophia
A reasonable doubt would be doubting that a person committed a crime if they were witnessed to be in another city during the crime.

edit on 6-7-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

Exactly. A doubt with a reason.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting

That makes sense and I am actually a little shocked there is not a clear-cut and defined definition.
2nd line

I think in this particular trial the reasonable doubt comes from the fact that while the child is certainly dead they have yet to discover the actual cause and manner of her death. Therefore they cannot reasonably convict a person with the crime of causing it.

Just a little background on me I am a credentialed counterintelligence investigator with a PI license as well - I have done numerous military 15-6 investigations as well as others. Usually I work on a preponderance of evidence standard that means it is more likely the person did it than not. Then the case goes forward for the courts and lawyers to sort out. That said I am not a judge or lawyer so take this for what it's worh - nothing.

Reasonable doubt to me means that there is either some evidence to support an alternate theory or a marked lack of real evidence to support the theory advanced by the prosecution.

While I do not see that the defense advanced any viable alternate perpetrator, neither did the prosecution advance any real evidence that Casey Anthony was the murderer. Both sides made their cases poorly and that makes it a tie and a tie in court, like in base running goes to the defendant or the baserunner.

All the drama about her acting inappropriately while the child was missing is a red herring it is not evidence it is just a character attack. There is nothing illegal about it.

They had some duct tape at the house to which many people including anyone with a credit card and the knowledge of how to jimmy a lock would have access. = Doubt

Used to tape the dead kids mouth/head or something they are not sure... = Doubt

Not sure if thats what killed her. = Doubt

Same tape can’t be tied to any individual. = Doubt

Imagine if a butcher knife in your house was taken and used in a crime say killing your brother – you never got along with him and therefore you went and partied with friends after he goes missing. Then someone claims since you were out partying and had access to the knife (no finger prints found) you sit in jail for a few years while on trial…

Some lame theory that they buried the family pets in a similar manner. = Um yeah...thin

The presence of traces of chloroform in the hair of the child and a search on a computer in the house for how to make it on an unrestricted system to which any member of the household including any visitor or a surreptitious intruder could have accessed. = Doubt

Then Cindy Anthony claimed she searched for it. = Doubt

Anyone could have done it and since the physical evidence is so compromised by time and decomp we will never know. The lack of evidince might suggest a practiced and experianced killer...which is all the more scarry.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting

Imagine you're sitting on a jury. There are 20 things that make you think a person is guilty. But then there is one thing that makes you doubt it. You can get so caught up in that one doubt, and your own desire to obey instructions, that confusion sets in, and you wind up making a poor decision, thinking that the one, overrides the 20.

It doesn't.

It depends on the actual evidence though. The way that I read this statement of yours, is as if each of these 21 pieces(?) are equal. Most likely, they are not.

It depends on the type of evidence. Also depends on how strong or convincing each piece of evidence is. If that one piece is strong enough to continue giving you doubts (and reasonably so), even when alongside 20 pieces of circumstantial evidence, then that one very well may be enough, to not convict.

I may not know what I am talking about though. After my own displeasing visits into a courtroom, I have tried to make it a point, to not go back into one. Some cases would definitely be interesting, but I do not envy jurors. The fact that I have never been invited, does not bother me.



I have not attempted to look this up, but thought you may know. Even if you don't know, you will probably have more of a desire than me, to find the answer.
Is there a structured definition, for 'reasonable doubt,' that is used by The Supreme Court?

With this week's events, reasonable doubt is going to be a hot topic.

What probably should also be discussed is unreasonable expectations, particularly when such expectations have been strongly influenced by the media. Such as: expecting a guilty verdict after 3 years of systematic character assassination, even though the State cannot present a convincing case.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
You don't just examine "doubt", you are also examine REASON. Is there enough reason here, to believe that a crime has occurred and this individual perpetrated it? Would a reasonable person believe a crime occurred and this person perpetrated it?

reason in this context means nothing, in a trial, and honestly should not.

this is a rather hard thing for me to say as i AM of two minds about it. i once had a freind refer to me as the reincarnation of testla as i tend to get screwed everytime i turn arround. reasonable doubt is extreemly needed in the choice of convicting or not convicting someone of a crime. let me share a personal story.

years ago at an old home there was a rape that happened quite close to my backyard which backed onto a bike trail.the victom was a teenage girl who worked at the local variety store that i frequented on an almost daily basis. now at first not being one to watch a lot of news (how i miss those days of ignorant bliss ), i had no idea that this crime even took place. well i had noticed that day that my normaly friendly neibour was rather cool towards me. i didn't think anything of this as he could have just had a bad day. then i walked to the store later on. as i was walking to the store i saw ME on a wanted poster that seemed to be hung up on every spot that could be used. of course at that point i had no choice but to read it to SEE what i had supposidly done this time. i was shocked, rape is definatly something i would have done. (still didn't know who the victom was, just location, crime, and my picture (a composit drawing). well i kinda freaked and just turned arround to go hide. i felt sick, i was starting to panic. i just wanted to find a hole and drag it in after me.

well i then decided to call a freind before my mind went totaly out of controll from panic. (after all my record of being screwed told me no good could come of this, i was NOT looking forward to a stay in prisson). well my freind just laughed and told me it must just be me missinterpiting the picture. panic still building i stayed inside in the basement all day. well later on that night my freind called me back and appologised as it WAS me in that picture. she had seen it on the news that evening. well of course my panic became even worse, i watched a later newscast and found out some of the particulars of the case. strange thoughts were running through my head, could i have possibly done this? i had not been drinking or aything at time crime was commited, but i certainly had no memory of it, not that i realy kept track of where i was at what time or anything. had i been drugged without my knowlage? this was not something i would never even CONSIDER DOING. yup i was in full blown panic mode now. i couldn't help but think it HAD to be me but yet it COULDN'T be ME. (what do you think my chances at a trial or even interagation would be?)i was so scared it was frightening. HOW COULD I HAVE DONE THIS, was running on one track, while i was also sure no way in hell it was me on another track, just looping continuasly.

well i did make it out of the house had to work afterall. i worked in a public place and got some rather strange looks all week, i almost was trying to hide my face from the world, still went to the store (still i didn't realize who the victome was). well towards the end of that week i was exiting the variety store when i was stopped by two guys, one of which flipped out a badge (i almost crapped my pants here it was, i was going to jail ). they pulled me aside phisicaly (not realy rough thank god otherwise i probably would have tried to escape (i was in full blown panic remember). i was shakeing, my mind was mush. the one stood in front of me fireing off a barrage of questions. i don't even remeber all of it. i know it sounded rather lame that i was at home, no witnesses, and the crime prety much happened in my backyard anyway. all of a sudden the cop that had been directly behind me pulled out my hair (almost waist long) from beneith my cammo jacket. "HOLY # look at the leaghnth of his hair". the cop in front walked back and looked, they whispered to each other for a minute. the first cop comes back arround and askes how long had been growing hair. i replied that it had been a couple years. he nodded and at that point his tone became almost freindly and said that it could NOT have been me as suspects hair was only down to shoulders and unbound. they just walked off at that point leaveing me shakeing in disbeleif and releif. i couldn't even stand i prety much just colapsed with tears streaming.at that oint the store owner came out ant took me inside and sat me down in a chair.he let me regain controll then told me what had happened.

he first appologised that he had been threatened by the police that he could not say anything to me before this. then went on with what i didn't know. apparently the first thing the cops did on the night of the assult was to call the store owner and go over the footage of that day with the poor girl, who he said adimantly told the cops IT WAS NOT ME, as she knew me because was a regular. but apparently every time i walked to the store the police received tons of phone calls saying that they had just seen the suspect. and so the cops realy had no choice but to question me.he also said both he and the girl were both sorry for what happened but could do nothing to help further, untill the police were through with me.

as i see it only[i/] two things saved me, 1) the girl haveing the presance of mind in her traumatized state to be adimant that i did not do it, 2) my long hair (i still keep my hair kinda like a good luck talisman even tho it did cause me issues at work). i have little doubt that if not for these 2 things my chances were very high i would be rotting in jail today. THIS is where REASONABLE DOUBT would have come into play. now all the facts against me would have been circumstancial. but here they are
-i PERFICTLY matched the victome's description
--i lived right by SCEAN of the CRIME
---i was a REGULAR at the store the VICTOME WORKED at (and the people at the store also knew i thought the girl was cute)
----i had no real aliby (in all honesty crime was close enough i could conceivably done it even if i DID have witnesses)
-----if they had taken a look closely at me, things i had been falsely accused of in the past would have come up, pointing to very likely guilt
-----my MENTAL STATE i was starting to think mabe i DID DO IT (i would have been a rather poor witness for myself on the stand, esily confuesed so easily contradicted, in all probability i would have looked guilty as hell)

would yourselves if on the jury, found me NOT GUILTY by reason of reasonable doubt, be honest about it, i would have probably contradicted myself on the stand and looked like i was full of lies. i would have been literaly shakeing on the stand and i don't have a good poker face.

i HATE people getting off scott free by playing the legal game. but i ALSO KNOW that too many innocents get caught up like this. being in that awkward possition a few times myself. tends to make me want to err on the side of caution where REASONABLE DOUBT comes into play.