Also known as: beyond a reasonable doubt · beyond reasonable doubt · reasonable doubt standard · BRD
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The evidentiary standard in criminal prosecutions that requires the government to establish every element of the charged offense to a moral certainty that excludes any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. In the absence of such proof the defendant is presumed innocent and must be acquitted.
Scott Summers is charged with theft. The prosecution presents evidence that Summers was near the store but offers no testimony or records showing he took the goods. The jury is instructed that it may convict only if every element is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt on the taking element, the jury returns a verdict of not guilty.
Sabrina Shah is tried for intentionally killing her uncle. The jury acquits because the prosecution failed to prove the killing beyond a reasonable doubt. In the later probate proceeding the civil court cannot relitigate the issue under the lower preponderance standard because the criminal acquittal conclusively negates the slayer allegation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Seth Shapiro is prosecuted for perjury. At trial the court instructs the jury that it may convict only if the government proves every element, including falsity of the statement, beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury acquits because the evidence leaves room for a reasonable hypothesis of innocent mistake.
Solomon Silver is charged with a firearm offense carrying a mandatory minimum. The court requires the government to prove the fact triggering the minimum sentence to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the prosecution offers no such proof, the mandatory minimum cannot be imposed.
Sebastian Santos is tried for unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun. The court instructs the jury that it must find every element of the offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt before returning a guilty verdict. The jury acquits after concluding the government failed to meet that standard.
Sofia Stern is charged with a criminal offense and the case proceeds to trial. The court charges the jury that the government bears the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury returns a not-guilty verdict because the evidence does not exclude every reasonable doubt.
No. The standard governs only criminal prosecutions. Civil proceedings, including slayer-rule determinations, use the preponderance standard unless a statute or constitutional rule imposes a higher burden.
Supporting sources
A final criminal conviction for felonious and intentional killing conclusively proves the defendant is a slayer in a subsequent civil action. The civil court need not retry the issue under the lower preponderance standard.
Supporting sources
Any fact that increases the statutory maximum or mandatory minimum sentence, other than a prior conviction, must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supporting sources
No. The government need only prove the admissibility of a confession or seized evidence by a preponderance of the evidence at a suppression hearing.
Supporting sources
A constitutional error requires reversal unless the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.
Supporting sources
…values in law enforcement, although this is similarly true of other limitations such as the grand jury requirement and the reasonable doubt standard. Accusatorial values, however, have openly been absorbed into the due process standard governing confessions; this indeed is why at present "the kinship of the two rules [governing…