how to explain reasonable doubt to a jury

Absent other evidence, neither brother can be convicted even though it's obvious one of them did it because a reasonable person can doubt which of the two men the evidence points to.īeyond a Reasonable Doubt – The evidence presented by the prosecutor in a criminal trial proves the defendant’s guilt to such a degree that no reasonable doubt could exist in the mind of a rational, reasonable person. Neither will rat on the other, so there's no witness testimony. Their identical DNA was found at the crime scene, proving one of them did it. It there is any reasonable interpretation or explanation of the evidence that is consistent with the defendant's innocence, then there is a reasonable doubt.Įxample: Identical twin brothers are accused of murder. After some searching, I've landed on one I personally feel good about and made a sort of amalgam of examples and definitions here that I pulled from various users at r/lawĪ reasonable doubt means that there is no reasonable alternative other than the defendant's guilt. It's worth pointing out that Reasonable Doubt is not an easy term to define part of that difficulty lies in the fact that often the terms 'reasonable' and 'doubt' are often put into the definition itself. Whether or not the people of this subreddit feel that SA is guilty, can we please all agree that there was a reasonable doubt that he did not commit the crime he's now serving time for?

How to explain reasonable doubt to a jury