Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Example 1

Sean is being tried for conspiracy. Eleven jurors vote guilty. But one juror, Alex, is split 50/50 on whether Sean is guilty. Alex must vote not guilty, as he has reasonable doubt.

Example 2

Rhonda is being tried for tax evasion. Ricky, a juror, feels 99% certain that Rhonda is guilty. Ricky should vote guilty, as he does not have reasonable doubt that Rhonda is guilty.

Example 3

A prosecutor is given evidence that Leonard, a local barber, may be involved in an illegal gambling operation. After investigating further, the prosecutor can’t find evidence that proves Leonard’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the prosecutor is facing a tough re-election battle. His political advisors tell him to charge Leonard, as it will bring him positive headlines ahead of the election. But the prosecutor refuses to do so, due to the lack of compelling evidence. The prosecutor did the right thing; the case would’ve resulted in an acquittal, as the prosecutor couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Leonard is guilty.

Case Examples

• Beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal context: In criminal trials, beyond a reasonable doubt is generally defined by jury instructions. Commonly, reasonable doubt is defined as “a doubt based upon reason and common sense, and not the mere possibility of innocence.” In the case United States v. Owens, 966 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2020), the defendant, Owens, challenged his criminal conviction. He alleged in part that the court’s jury instructions were unclear, as the court did not instruct the jury to find him innocent if there was even a mere possibility of his innocence. Id. The Appeals Court affirmed his conviction, finding that the lower court had not abused its discretion by requiring the definition of reasonable doubt to be more than a mere possibility of innocence. Id.
• The Supreme Court has also found that “the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of course.” Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5, 114 S. Ct. 1239, 1243, 127 L. Ed. 2d 583 (1994). Instead, trial courts must only “instruct[] the jury on the necessity that the defendant's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

Key facts:

A 1971 study by Rita Simon and Linda Mahan has been used by judges to determine a quantifiable standard for beyond a reasonable doubt. The study surveyed judges and their views on reasonable doubt. According to Heidi L. Hansberry et al., “Those judges who responded split roughly into thirds. One-third reported beyond a reasonable doubt to be at 100 percent certainty. One-third reported it at 90 or 95 percent. The final third reported it at 80 percent.” See Heidi L. Hansberry et al., Legal Standards by the Numbers, 100 JUDICATURE, 56, 57–58.