Reasonable Doubt in the United States

Reasonable Doubt Definition

The degree of certainty a juror requires to determine the guilt of a person on trial. See an alternative definition of Reasonable Doubt in the legal Dictionaries.
A standard of evidence used in determining guilt in criminal cases. The standard requires the prosecution to prove to a fact-finder (judge or jury) that the accused committed the crime charged. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused (said the definition of Reasonable Doubt based on the The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary) must be found not guilty. Reasonable doubt is not imagined doubt or doubt the fact-fmder creates to avoid finding someone guilty. Reasonable doubt is that level of uncertainty that would cause a prudent person to withhold action in a matter of importance to him or her. Indeed, fact-finders in criminal cases must be satisfied “beyond” a reasonable doubt, which means that they are fully convinced by the facts presented that the accused is guilty. Reasonable doubt is created by the defense in a number of ways. One, of course, is through the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

Analysis and Relevance

The reasonable doubt standard is used as part of the approach that presumes the accused to be not guilty. This presumption requires the State to demonstrate a compelling case against the defendant. The reasonable doubt standard was used for decades as part of the common law tradition, but was held to be a requirement of due process by the Supreme Court in the case In re Winship (397 U.S. 358: 1970). Winship specifically examined the question of the reasonable doubt standard in juvenile delinquency proceedings, but the decision in the case clearly established the standard of proof needed for both adult and juvenile cases. The reasonable doubt standard is not used in the adjudication of civil issues. Rather, the less demanding standard of “preponderance of evidence” is sufficient in civil proceedings. (1)

Legal Issue for Attorneys

The term ‘reasonable doubt’ is almost incapable of any definition which will add much to what the words themselves imply. Mitchell, J., in 38 Minn. 439. The most commonly quoted definition is that of Chief Justice Shaw: An abiding conviction to a moral certainty (5 Cush. [Mass.] 320) ; but it has been held that moral certainty is not equivalent to an absence of reasonable doubt (47 Ala. 78). It has been defined by negation as not a vague or whimsical doubt (34 Iowa, 520), not a mere conjecture (36 Ala. 211), etc. A practical definition upheld in some jurisdictions is that it is such a doubt as would cause a man to hesitate before acting in his own most important business concerns (10 Minn. 407) ; but this has been disapproved (1 Dak. 452), and, in general, no affirmative equivalent has ever been given which has not been disapproved in another jurisdiction.

What is Reasonable Doubt?

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced
doubt. Such a doubt must not influence the jury to return a verdict of not guilty if the jury has an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and
weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction,
it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved
beyond every reasonable doubt and the jury must find the accused not guilty because the
doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that the jury is to look for that
proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

For a meaning of it, read Reasonable Doubt in the Legal Dictionary here. Browse and search more U.S. and international free legal definitions and legal terms related to Reasonable Doubt.