Beyond Reasonable Doubt

This is the highest standard used as the Burden of Proof in jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings. It has been described as, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the Evidence, or lack of Evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's Evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the Defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the Defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the Defendant should be pronounced guilty. The term connotes that Evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the Evidence presented.