Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard that a prosecutor must meet to secure a guilty verdict in a criminal trial. In other words, a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until his or her guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
But what does that really mean?
California Jury Instruct (CALCRIM) 220 states that:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.
Meeting the burden
Prosecutors in criminal cases must meet their burden of proof by providing evidence that the criminal charges are true. That evidence can be either:
- direct, or
- indirect, also known as circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence is evidence that, if true, directly connects the defendant to the crime charged.
For example: In a murder case, an eyewitness testifies that he saw the defendant pull out a gun and shoot the victim to death.
Circumstantial evidence is something that, if true, would allow jurors to infer that the defendant committed the crime.[1]
For example: In a different murder case, the state shows that the defendant had a motive to kill the victim, had threatened to kill the victim, and was seen running away from the vicinity after the shooting.
Because it does not require the jury to form an inference, direct evidence is typically more persuasive.
Evidence in a criminal can come in a variety of forms, such as:
- witness testimony,
- testimony by the victim,
- testimony by character witnesses, who vouch for the personality or credibility of the defendant or alleged victim,
- surveillance footage,
- implements of the offense, such as a murder weapon,
- photographs,
- DNA evidence,
- the results of a blood alcohol test, if the case is for driving under the influence (DUI),
- forensic evidence of the crime scene, and
- autopsies, for fatal crimes.
All of these facts, as well as others, can be used by prosecutors to prove their claim that the defendant committed the crime charged.
The jury must issue an acquittal if the district attorney fails to show the defendant’s guilt with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Presumption of innocence
In California and the rest of the U.S., including in federal courts, the criminal justice system presumes that a defendant is innocent of the charged crime. This means the prosecutor has the burden of proving their case that you committed the crime. You do not have to prove your innocence.
The criminal defense lawyers at our law firm have won cases in the past without putting on a defense. If the prosecutors are not able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, criminal cases can be won even without calling a witness or submitting any evidence.
In criminal cases in California, the judge must inform the jury of the presumption of innocence.[2]
Burden of proof and standard of proof
It is important to understand the difference between the:
- standard of proof, and
- burden of proof.
The standard of proof is the certainty with which the case needs to be proven.
The burden of proof is who has to present evidence to meet the standard of proof.
In criminal cases in California, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecutor has the burden of proof.
There are exceptions to this in the criminal justice system. For example, certain affirmative defenses shift the burden of proof back to the defendant in California. The standard of proof that you would have to meet to prove one of these defenses is generally by a preponderance of the evidence.
This burden-shifting is far more common in civil cases.[3]
Standards of proof in California
There are three common standards of proof in California:
- beyond a reasonable doubt,
- clear and convincing evidence, and
- preponderance of the evidence.
Each one is a higher standard to meet than the one below it.
According to the California Supreme Court and state appellate courts, the judge presiding over the trial has a duty to tell the jury which standard of proof is to be used.[4] The jury then has to weigh the evidence presented during the trial impartially and without bias.[5]
Beyond a reasonable doubt
The beyond a reasonable doubt standard requires proof that leaves the fact finder with an abiding conviction that the charge is true.[6]
Note that, under this legal standard, the proof does not need to eliminate all possible or imaginary doubts; just reasonable ones.
This is the standard of proof that is used in most criminal trials. According to the California Criminal Jury Instructions, the judge presiding over the trial is supposed to tell the jury:
“Whenever I tell you the prosecutor must prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt”[7]
Clear and convincing
The clear and convincing standard of proof requires evidence that makes the fact finder think that there is a high probability that the claim is true.[8] Clear and convincing evidence is sometimes said to be about 75 percent certainty.
This standard of proof is typically used in civil claims involving:
- fraud,
- wills and estates, and
- restraining orders.
Preponderance of the evidence
The preponderance of the evidence standard of proof is satisfied by evidence that makes the fact finder think that something is more likely than not to be true.[9] This is evidence that supports a claim with 51 percent certainty.
This standard of proof is used in most civil cases, particularly personal injury claims.
It can also be used to prove affirmative defenses allowed by criminal law.
Legal Citations:
[1] California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) No. 223.
[2] California Penal Code 1096.
[3] See McDonnell Douglas Corp., v. Green, 93 S.Ct. 1817 (1973).
[4] People v. Vann, 12 Cal.3d 220 (1974).
[5] See CALCRIM No. 220.
[6] Same.
[7] Same.
[8] California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) No. 201.
