jury needs proof beyond a shadow of a doubt

Trial courts frequently do not make the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt sufficiently clear to juries, and appellate courts sometimes do not sufficiently assure that the standard is being observed.

Judge Newman thanks Bolch Judicial Institute Fellow Amelia Thorn and Duke Law student Colleen O’Leary for helpful editorial suggestions. The residency also offers the judge an opportunity to work on the judge’s own writing projects, with the assistance of a student researcher. The recipient visits Duke Law, where he or she may give guest lectures, participate in faculty scholarship workshops, and advise students and faculty. The Institute’s Distinguished Judge in Residence is awarded to an outstanding jurist who has an interest in scholarship, law teaching, and the study of the judiciary. Newman during his tenure as the Bolch Judicial Institute’s inaugural Distinguished Judge in Residence.

Wilbur.Editor’s note: This article was written by Judge Jon O.

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.

Jury needs proof beyond a shadow of a doubt