beyond reasonable doubt

[Marg0]

what does this specifically mean? i know what it roughly means, but, given that some big cases hinge on an exact interpretation of it..............

[Buenchico]

It's not hard to find dictionary definitions of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. For example, see here:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ beyond%20a%20reasonable%20doubt

However, in practice, each juror will have their own interpretation of the phrase, so it will always be hard to attain true consistency.

I've done a bit of court reporting (and I sometimes visit the Crown court just out of curiosity). I recall one judge who always gave the jury the same advice which, in my opinion, summarised the concept of 'reasonable doubt' better than any text book can do. It went roughly like this:
"Members of the jury, the prosecution might convince you that it's possible that the defendant committed this offence. If so, you must return a verdict of 'not guilty'. The prosecution might convince you that it's likely that the defendant committed this offence. If so, you must return a verdict of 'not guilty'. The prosecution might convince you that it's almost certain that the defendant committed this offence. If so, you must return a verdict of 'not guilty'. If, and only if, the prosecution can convince you that the defendant did commit this offence, and that no other conclusion could be reached by any reasonable person you may consider a verdict of 'guilty' but, in making such consideration, you should repeatedly ask yourselves whether you've examined all of the evidence to the contrary".

Chris

[Josh111]

Hi Marg0,

Chris definately got to the bones of it there! As you know, the standard of proof differs to that in civil cases (which uses 'the balance of probabilities') and guilt needs to be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt', so it's not just a case of 'He most probably didn't do it '. Accordingly, there must be NO reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that the person is guilty.

This sounds really confusing but there can be a doubt in the mind of the reasonable person, but it must not be such a doubt that it would affect the belief of the reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. If this doubt does affect the belief the juror must find the person guilty.

Hope I've helped... :)

Josh

[Whickerman]

It's a concept that's all but been removed from the legal system here in Ireland. Our last three big-story murder cases have been tried purely on the basis of circumstantial evidence - there's one in the central court right now being deliberated on, and another where a man was convicted based solely on the fact that he told police he was somewhere and his phone showed he was actually a few miles away (but again not at the scene of the crime); and another convicted on the basis that...well actually on no basis:
http://bocktherobber.com/2008/03/brian-kearney -found-guilty
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0226/kearneys.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0303/kearneys.html


It seems that the balance has shifted towards the proof of probability used in civil cases.

[Marg0]

Thanks all, very interesting read. It appears to be a stricter rule than it would seem at first glance.
Is that how OJ got off but still got done for damages?