Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 272: “That degree is well settled. The principle as to what degree of proof is required is stated by Lord Denning in his inimitable style in Miller v. It is true that the prosecution is required to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but that does not mean that the degree of proof must be beyond a shadow of doubt. We do not think that the appellants have made out a case for grant of any such benefit. That brings us to the question whether the appellants could be given the benefit of doubt having regard to the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution against them. This standard of proof is much higher than the civil standard, called “ preponderance of the evidence,” which only requires a certainty greater than 50 percent.įor an article detailing the origins of this standard, download this University of Chicago Law Review article.įor Supreme Court cases related to this legal standard, see Patterson v. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |