Criminal Trials - What Level of Proof Does the Prosecution Have to Provide?

In a criminal trial, the government must prove themeans one thing while another juror may think it
elements of the crime the defendant is accused ofmeans more or less than the first juror.
beyond a reasonable doubt. So, what exactly doesThe OJ Simpson case presents a great example. The
this mean?defendant lawyers and prosecutors presented piles
Everyone has heard of proof beyond a reasonableof evidence in favour of their sides. They then
doubt. We see it brought up in television shows likepresented all types of experts and such to argue
Law & Order, CSI and, well, pick your favoriteagainst the evidence applied by the opposing party.
crime drama. We also see it in real life situations likeHow was the jury supposed to figure out "beyond a
the OJ Simpson murder case. What is rarelyreasonable doubt" given the mass of information?
explained, however, is what the phrase actuallyWell, the defense didn't really present much of a
means and what must be shown.plausible case, but then the prosecution made a huge
The first thing to understand is what beyondmistake.
reasonable doubt does not mean. It does not meanIn law school, they teach you never to ask a witness
proving by a 51 percent to 49 percent majority. Mucha question you do not know the answer to. In the
more is required, although the evidence provided bySimpson case, the prosecution just assumed the
the prosecution does not have to be absolute.gloves would fit Simpson. As we all know, they didn't.
Instead, the government must provide sufficientThe PROSECUTION presented the jury with a simple
evidence that a reasonable person would notto see and understand piece of critical evidence that
reasonably doubt that the defendant did eachraised reasonable doubt. If the glove doesn't fit, you
element of the crime.must acquit. Simple put, the best evidence that the
Admittedly, this is still a fairly vague standard. Manyburden of proof had not been met was provided by
legal experts argue that this why we sometimes seethe prosecution. A monumental gaff that will be
such bizarre findings from juries. They simply are nottalked about in the legal profession for years!
comfortable with the standard. One juror may think it