Reasonable doubt is one of those concepts we hear so often that it's easy to accept as a truth without considering its precise meaning. As a follow up to our September 29 post on presumption of innocence, today's post will explore what is meant by this fundamental principle of the American justice system.
Before jurors begin hearing testimony and seeing evidence in a criminal case, the judge gives them instructions on topics ranging from confidentiality to note taking to what to do if they have questions. In California, jurors hear this explanation of reasonable doubt: "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt."
Attempts have been made in recent years to clarify jury instructions, but this definition of reasonable doubt can still leave people outside the legal system scratching their heads. To gain a clear understanding, it's best to build backwards, first exploring what is meant by "doubt," then "reasonable," and finally "beyond." Before we do that, a reminder: the burden of proof in criminal proceedings is on the prosecution. Because of the presumption of innocence, the state has to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty. And the standard that must be met is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Doubt" in this context refers to uncertainty. If I doubt that someone committed a crime, I'm not convinced that he did it. The standard for determining guilt, though, isn't concerned with unreasonable, fanciful doubts. What we care about are "reasonable" doubts, plausible alternative explanations that keep a reasonable person from saying with certitude that a defendant is guilty.
Finally there is "beyond." Though in everyday language beyond might have a connotation of distance, in relation to reasonable doubt it really means "eliminating" or "excluding."
So when we say that the standard in a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we mean that a reasonable person has looked at the evidence and is left with only one plausible explanation: the defendant did it. If that standard is not met, then a jury must acquit the defendant.
To illustrate, here are two scenarios: I place a chocolate cake on the kitchen table, where my six-year old son is sitting, and leave the room for five minutes. When I come back, a large wedge of cake is gone. I say to my son, "Did you eat a piece of the cake?" He says he didn't and doesn't know who did because he was reading his book and wasn't paying attention to the cake. He says maybe it was his brother and sister and their friends who went through the kitchen while I was out of the room. Based just on this evidence, the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt hasn't been met. I might suspect my son of eating the cake, but I, a reasonable person, can't say with certainty that he did. Further investigation shows, in fact, that my other children did in fact take the piece of cake, hoping that their younger brother would be framed.
Satisfying the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would require a fact pattern like this: I set the cake down and leave the kitchen to say goodbye to my other children and their friends as they head off to soccer practice. There is now no one else in the house except my son and me. When I come back into the kitchen, I see cake crumbs on the table and chocolate frosting on my son's hands and mouth. When I ask if he ate the cake, he says he didn't, that a squirrel came through the open window, ate the cake, smeared chocolate on my son's face, and ran off just as I came back in the room. It's an explanation, but it isn't one that a reasonable person would find plausible. Though I didn't see my son eat the cake, I can come to no other explanation than that he did it. I, a reasonable person, have eliminated any uncertainty about what happened.
This standard of guilt is set so high in criminal proceedings because the stakes are so great. We can't just convict people because they were in the area when a crime was committed, or they act in a suspicious manner, or even because of what they've done in the past. Presumption of innocence means that even though a person has been charged with a crime, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are not guilty, and in fact innocent, until the state proves its case to the demanding standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
