Please explain "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[CathyA]

Sometimes my brain just won't let me in certain areas of it. This phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" confuses me totally.
Can someone explain it to me in simple terms please.

[iris lily]

I look at it this way, having served on a jury that acquitted the accused:

Are there reasonable alternatives that could have just as easily happened as the story presented by the prosecution? Were those alternative addressed sufficiently by the prosecution and refuted?

If not satisfactorily refuted by the prosecution, one of those alternative scenarios is as likely to have happened as the one presented by the prosecution.

[fidgiegirl]

I presume you are thinking of the Anthony case?

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the defense has the easier job, so to speak. They just have to plant a seed of doubt in the jurors' minds. Is is reasonably possible that the little girl drowned and mom freaked out so she hid it? The jurors must have thought so.

I know that a lot of people won't agree with this, but I think it's a beauty of our legal system. While some people might get off when they were guilty, other innocent people are saved from incarceration. Or at least, in theory.

ETA: I didn't really follow the case closely. Maybe I got it wrong. But you get the idea.

[loosechickens]

beyond a reasonable doubt means that you can't really come up with any other scenario than the one that has been presented to you, because of the evidence that was presented. Say, in the Anthony case, if the mother's fingerprints still remained on the duct tape that was over the child's mouth, a neighbor testified that he saw the mother carry a bundle from the trunk of her car and throw it into the swamp and he wondered at the time why she was disposing of her trash in that way, that the body had not been decomposing for so long, so that a cause of death could have been established, etc., etc., etc. Without definitive evidence, that eliminates other possibilities, the defense introducing the possibility that the child might have drowned and the mother just panicked (and in the Casey Anthony case, it was her contention that was what had happened, and that her father had helped her dispose of the body). Far fetched? Yes. But, it's how the system is supposed to work.

I'm assuming that you are talking about the Anthony case here, and the few jurors who have agreed to make statements pretty much said that they "thought" she was guilty, but just did not have sufficient proof, an actual cause of death that had been proven, etc., to be able to pass that "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. That it made them "sick at our stomachs" because they thought she WAS involved, but the level of proof that was required just was not there in the state's case.

There is a huge difference between "Not Guilty" in a court of law, and "innocent". I doubt that there are very many people, and certainly not the jurors, who really think that Casey Anthony was innocent, but just feeling that and being able to prove it in a court of law are, unfortunately, different things.

[loosechickens]

here is a legal definition....hope this helps:

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy."

[JaneV2.0]

"The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty."

In the Anthony case, her defense put forth a preposterous alternative explanation involving unsubstantiated (and irrelevant) incest, an accidental drowning made to look like a murder, and a body snatching meter reader. The jurors had better things to do, apparently, than sitting around practicing their rusty critical thinking skills, thus the verdict.

The facts of the case were similar in many ways to the Scott Peterson case--no cause of death, no DNA or fingerprint evidence, and the motive was the killer's desire for "a beautiful life" free of parental responsibility. Scott Peterson's defense was just as loopy, involving a van full of transients, as I recall. The difference is that Peterson is sitting on death row.

The only trials I've ever followed gavel to gavel were Anthony's and OJ's. Obviously, I'm a jinx.

[iris lily]

In the Anthony case, her defense put forth a preposterous alternative explanation involving unsubstantiated (and irrelevant) incest...

But the alleged molestation by her father was the explanation for why she
was so screwed up, manifested as a habitual liar. Just sayin'

For some years I read a lot of those true crime books, but I can't remember them now, they all blur together. The mom killers were my favorites because they were unusual. The queen was the woman on the East coast who killed around 8 of her kids. Hard to believe, but it happened. She kept moving around, and in those days (the 60 's) child deaths were not aggressively investigated. Then there was the Munchausen by Proxy mom (I think the book was Mother's Helper.) We had a serial mom killer here in St. Louis. She killed two baby girls a few years apart.

I am fascinated by the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I don't think either parent did it. That one is weird as hell.

[catherine]

This topic consumed me for a few days when I was on a jury once--because it was so similar to the Anthony case in that we KNEW the guy probably did the crime (holding up a convenience store with a ski mask on). Apparently the prosecution had found a ski mask with his DNA on it, but it was 5 weeks later, and the mask was found in a house nowhere near the crime scene. The only other thing we had to go on was the testimony of his accomplice that the defendant was the robber (but the accomplice had motivation to lie).

So, based on reasonable doubt, we acquitted the defendant.

However--after the case was over, it hit me like a ton of bricks that part of the prosecutor's case had been witnesses who said the ski mask was on crooked and also a law enforcement guy had said that the DNA from saliva was found on the corner of the mouth but closer to the cheek. I know it sounds really dumb, but because the PROSECUTOR never put one and one together for us, and because those two witnesses for the prosecution were days apart, we completely missed the fact that if the ski mask was on crooked the DNA would have been, not around the mouth, but on the cheek.

So, for me, reasonable doubt ended when I had that insight. I realized then that I and the rest of the jury had almost most assuredly let a guilty man free. It plagued me for a long time--but I really felt that the prosecutor was also to blame--she had really missed the main opportunity to connect the dots for us. After three days of testimony, we had too much competing information to be able to do that ourselves--and that was her job. All she had to say was, "OK, you have a crooked mask, and you have saliva DNA that is on the CHEEK of the mask, not the mouth" and she never did.

To me that was the difference between reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt.

The dots that the Casey Anthony prosecutors were trying to connect were also not made in a way that satisfied the jurors, so there was reasonable doubt. There are dots that simply can't be connected, like all the questions about how Caylee actually died.

[CathyA]

Thanks everyone.
Whenever I try to think of this concept "(reasonable doubt), my mind just goes blank. I guess its just part of my learning disability or something.
Ok........so it means that lots of the jurers might have small doubts that the person is guilty. But if jurers are going to vote "guilty"......they need to move beyond their little doubts, and be absolutely sure that the person is guilty. Is this right? They have to feel the defendant is guilty beyond their small doubts of guilt. Small ("reasonable") doubts aren't enough to convict a person, right?
This is really bizarre that I can't understand this!

I guess I'm having trouble understanding if the reasonable doubt applies to feelings of innocent or guilt.......but I guess its the guilt.
I know you all tried hard to help me understand, but I think that part of my brain is dead.

[IshbelRobertson]

Under Scottish law, (which is distinct from English/Welsh law) there are three verdicts 'Guilty', 'Not Guilty' and 'Not Proven'. The third of these is usually termed as 'Not proven, now don't do it again'!

Here's a bit from Wiki re our unique verdict

'The not proven verdict is used when the jury does not believe the case has been proven against the defendant but is not sufficiently convinced of their innocence to bring in a not guilty verdict. This perception is reflected in the popular paraphrase of "not proven" as meaning "not guilty, but don't do it again". A person receiving a not proven verdict is not fined or imprisoned, and is not subject to double jeopardy. The real effect of a not proven verdict is stigma for the acquitted person. The verdict can tarnish a person's reputation, as when socialite Madeleine Smith was charged with murder in nineteenth century Glasgow but acquitted with a not proven verdict. It has been said "You don't go to prison, but nobody will ever talk to you again."

[Spartana]

Under Scottish law, (which is distinct from English/Welsh law) there are three verdicts 'Guilty', 'Not Guilty' and 'Not Proven'. The third of these is usually termed as 'Not proven, now don't do it again'!

Here's a bit from Wiki re our unique verdict

'The not proven verdict is used when the jury does not believe the case has been proven against the defendant but is not sufficiently convinced of their innocence to bring in a not guilty verdict. This perception is reflected in the popular paraphrase of "not proven" as meaning "not guilty, but don't do it again". A person receiving a not proven verdict is not fined or imprisoned, and is not subject to double jeopardy. The real effect of a not proven verdict is stigma for the acquitted person. The verdict can tarnish a person's reputation, as when socialite Madeleine Smith was charged with murder in nineteenth century Glasgow but acquitted with a not proven verdict. It has been said "You don't go to prison, but nobody will ever talk to you again."

We have something similair called "No Contest" in which the defendant does not admit guilt or innocents, but agrees not to "contest" matter in court -or any judgement handed out by the court (I believe Lindsay Lohan plead "no contest" to her theft charge). It's not used in Capital Cases though - which can only have a gulity or not guilt result. In capital cases in Calif (and elsewhere) you can not even plead guilty but HAVE to have a trial.