04 Oct Black`s Law Reasonable Doubt
This term refers to the absence of evidence that prevents a judge or jury from convicting an accused for a crime. The prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to establish guilt. Reasonable doubt: The doubt that prevents a firm conviction of a defendant`s guilt, or the belief that there is a real possibility that the defendant is not guilty. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard used by a jury to determine whether a defendant is guilty. To determine whether guilt has been proven beyond any doubt, jurors must begin with the presumption of innocence of the accused. The fact that the prosecution did not prove beyond any doubt that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, which he was selling, would be used to produce methamphetamine necessitated the quashing of drug convictions. See: United States v. Truong, 425 F.3d 1282, 1291 (Cir. 10, 2005). Predominance of evidence: the greatest weight of evidence, which is not necessarily attested by the largest number of witnesses testifying to a fact, but by the evidence that has the most convincing power; A higher weight of evidence which, while not sufficient to completely free the mind from reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to bring a fair and impartial mind to one side of the problem rather than the other.
Fifty-six years ago, Judge Frankfurter stated that “it is the duty of the government to […] Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This idea – which is fundamental to our law and is rightly one of the boasts of a free society – is a requirement and guarantee of due process in the historical and procedural context of “due process”. See: Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 802-03 (1952) [dissenting]. The prosecutor`s failure to prove beyond any doubt the implied possession of the co-accused necessitated the quashing of the conviction for possession of methamphetamine with the intention of distributing it. See: United States v. Schofield, 433 F.3d 580, 586-87 (Cir.
8, 2006). Note: The conviction of a defendant requires unequivocal proof of guilt. There is a reasonable doubt when an investigator cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty or that a particular fact exists. It must be more than an imaginary doubt, and it is often defined in court as such a doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate before acting on an important issue. Everyone has heard of the phrase “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.” But there are three main standards for proof: the predominance of evidence; clear and convincing evidence; and reasonable doubts. Black`s Law Dictionary (8th edition 1990) provides the definitions of each in order of importance: the prosecution`s inability to prove beyond any doubt that the accused caused the death of a 7-week-old grandson necessitated the quashing of the conviction for assaulting a child resulting in death. See: Smith v. Mitchell, 437 F.3d 884, 889-90 (Cir. 9, 2006).
Clear and convincing evidence: Evidence that suggests that the thing to be proven is very likely or likely to be safe. This is a heavier burden than the preponderance of evidence, the standard used in most civil cases, but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as is often the case in criminal proceedings. The courts have concluded that the reasonable standard of doubt consists of two parts: the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. The first part imposes on the Public Prosecutor`s Office the obligation to provide sufficient evidence to call into question a fact. For example, this burden requires the prosecutor`s office to establish each element of the accused crime. If the prosecution does not comply with this burden (without questioning the fact), the judge may order a judgment of acquittal. The second part of the standard requires the prosecution to satisfy the jury (or a judge in a trial without a jury) that a question of fact, such as the element of a crime, must be decided in some way. This part places the onus on the prosecution to convince the jury that it has established every element of the accused offence beyond any doubt – and very rarely that burden is transferred to a criminal accused, and if so, the process of transferring the burden must withstand constitutional scrutiny. See: 38 Geo.L.J.Ann.Rev.Crim.Proc.
(2008), p. 652 n. 1999. See also: Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 201 (1977) [the requirement that the respondent prove the affirmative defence of the “heat of passion” by overriding the evidence did not unconstitutionally shift the burden of conviction].