If you’ve watched legal dramas like Law & Order, you’ve probably heard the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But have you heard of “by a preponderance of the evidence?” Both these terms describe legal standards of proof that someone alleging a claim must meet before a court will accept it as legally established. That might sound complicated, but it’s fairly straightforward once you know a few basic legal principles.
Standard of Proof
The standard of proof refers to the level of certainty and amount of evidence required for the court to accept something as fact. In criminal law, the standard of proof determines the certainty and evidence needed to prove the defendant is guilty. There are several different standards of proof depending on the type of trial.
Burden of Proof
The responsibility to meet the standard of proof is called the burden of proof, which determines which side in a legal dispute must prove the allegations or charges. To meet this burden, that party must provide enough supporting evidence to meet certain legal requirements that change based on the nature of the dispute.
Typically, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the party bringing the dispute or charges. In the context of a criminal trial, this means the prosecuting attorneys alleging that someone has committed a crime. Until the prosecution has proven otherwise, the defendant is not guilty. In a civil case like a lawsuit, the burden rests with the plaintiff: the person bringing a claim against the defendant.
There are certain stages of a criminal case where the burden of proof is on the defendant, though. For example, if the defendant is making an affirmative defense against their charges, such as claiming self-defense, they must prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
What Is Preponderance of Evidence?
“By a preponderance of evidence” is the standard of proof most often applied in civil law cases, including personal injury claims. It means that the plaintiff must prove to the judge or jury that it is more likely than not that the claim they’ve put forward is fact. In other words, there is a better than 50 percent chance that what they say is true.
For example, imagine that Tom has filed a lawsuit against Lynda. He is alleging that she was texting when she ran a stop sign and crashed into his car. To win his lawsuit, Tom doesn’t need to prove unquestionably that Lynda was texting when she should have been focused on the road. Instead, he only has to show that there is more than a 50 percent chance she was texting and didn’t stop as required. At the same time, Lynda does not have to prove that she was focused on the road. Tom, as the plaintiff, has the burden of proving his allegation.
What Is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest standard of proof in the American court system. Under New Jersey law, it applies almost exclusively to criminal and related cases, such as juvenile delinquency and aggravating circumstances cases.
Beyond a reasonable doubt means that the evidence and arguments the prosecution presents are so strong that there is no other reasonable explanation. If the prosecution leaves any logical doubt in the judge’s or jury’s mind that there is another theory, then they must find in favor of the defendant. It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean absolute certainty or complete absence of doubt. Reasonable doubt means that a rational person would have significant doubts about the defendant’s guilt after carefully evaluating all the evidence.
A good illustration of the differences between preponderance of evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt is provided by the criminal and civil trials O.J. Simpson faced over the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal case because the jury felt that the prosecution did not prove with reasonable undeniability that Simpson murdered Brown and Goldman. However, Simpson was found liable for the murders in the civil suit that Brown and Goldman’s families brought against him.
The Role of Evidence in “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”
The standard of proof for beyond a reasonable doubt is so high that the evidence required to reach it must also be so extensive and of such high quality that it leaves no room for reasonable alternative explanations in the minds of the judge or jury hearing a case. Some types of evidence the prosecution may use to try to prove a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt include:
- Surveillance footage
- Cell phone records
- DNA or forensic evidence
- Witness or expert testimony
A defendant’s defense attorney may suggest that a piece of evidence was obtained illegally or mishandled, a witness isn’t reliable, or the proof doesn’t show what the prosecution says it does. They could even present their own evidence supporting a different plausible theory. Doing so may cause enough doubt for the court to find the defendant not guilty.
How Does “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Benefit the Defendant?
The beyond a reasonable doubt standard benefits the defendant in a criminal case because it puts the obligation of establishing each element of a crime solely on the prosecution. The defendant does not have to prove their innocence. However, if they can establish reasonable doubt, such as a possible alternative theory, the prosecution cannot meet their required standard of proof.
The standard goes hand-in-hand with the defendant’s presumption of innocence. Any defendant in a criminal case is innocent until proven guilty. If the prosecution cannot meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, the mere presumption of innocence is enough to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge or jury.
This legal principle is essential to our country’s justice system. If we’re going to convict someone of a crime and take away their rights and freedom, we should be certain they are guilty. Unfortunately, this justice isn’t always carried out. That’s where having a skilled criminal defense attorney on your side is critical. They can poke holes in the prosecution’s case to suggest reasonable doubt supporting your innocence.
Other Legal Standards of Proof
The American legal system has other standards of proof beyond the two we’ve already discussed – including some closely connected with criminal cases. These other evidentiary standards include:
- Clear and convincing evidence – This standard sits between beyond a reasonable doubt and by a preponderance of the evidence. It establishes that an assertion is highly probable. It is used primarily in child custody, probate, and paternity matters.
- Probable cause – This evidence standard is lower than by a preponderance of the evidence and determines whether police may conduct a search, make an arrest, or receive a warrant. The term comes from language in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It means that there is a fair probability that an assertion is fact.
- Reasonable suspicion – An even lower standard is reasonable suspicion, which is the burden that law enforcement must meet before they can legally initiate a brief investigative stop. The law enforcement officer must be able to articulate a specific and individualized suspicion that a crime is in progress to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.
These other standards of proof may come into play when determining whether evidence to be presented at a criminal trial is admissible. For example, let’s suppose a scenario where Officer Berkeley is patrolling when he comes across Gerald. Officer Berkeley “doesn’t like his look” and stops Gerald, only to discover that Gerald has a bloody knife on his person. Officer Berkeley arrests Gerald, who becomes a person of interest in a recent stabbing.
While the bloody knife would be a compelling piece of evidence at trial, Judge Walker determines that Officer Berkeley’s random hunch was not enough to warrant a reasonable suspicion. This means the knife can’t be entered into evidence against Gerald. Without the knife, the whole case could fall apart, leading to the dismissal of the case against Gerald.
Get in Touch with Our New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorneys for Help
Are you facing criminal charges in New Jersey? If so, you need the help of an experienced defense attorney who understands the burden of proof in your case and how to work it to your advantage.
At the Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall, we have more than 200 years of combined criminal defense experience to put to work on your behalf. Our team of 15 attorneys includes former prosecutors and public defenders who’ve seen things from both sides of the aisle. We know how the other side will build their case – and how to tear it apart. Here’s what one former client had to say about their experience with us:
“I was accused of sexual assault. Everyone shunned me, even several attorneys that I called. No one wanted to take my defense seriously. But Jonathan was different. I knew he believed me and I thank god I found him. He scrutinized all the evidence and poked so many holes in the case that I was able avoid a conviction. I made the right choice.”
You deserve a team of criminal defense attorneys with top-notch qualifications and a proven track record – one that knows that talk is cheap and you need skills and dedication to get the best results. Contact the Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall to put us in your corner.
