Anyone and everyone that has ever watched a crime show on TV can tell you that the standard of proof in any criminal case is “Beyond on a Reasonable Doubt.” Most people, intuitively, think they know what that means — until they actually stop to think about it. It is one of those phrases we all know innately (much like Miranda), and yet we all think we understand it until we are placed on a jury and have to decide someone’s fate using it — or, if our fate is being decided by a group of strangers that are supposed to understand what it means equally.
If you are a prosecutor, you sell the standard to the jury as easily achievable, and if you are a defense attorney, you argue it’s a standard so high (the highest in any area of law after all), that it is incredibly difficult to reach. And, to complicate things, while beyond a reasonable doubt applies equally to all criminal matters, it becomes more laboring to consider when a case comes down to he said/she said or testimony alone vs. a case with DNA, video, etc. Jurors seem to have little difficulty wrestling with what that standard means on a simple misdemeanor trespass case with little consequence if they get it wrong but apply it to a delayed report child molest case with no other physical evidence and a defendant facing life in jail, and you’ll find jurors spending hours discussing what the standard actually means.
At first blush, I think most people believe it means: “do I have a doubt, and is my doubt reasonable after hearing all the evidence? If not, then the person is guilty.” Or, put in the positive, “is my doubt reasonable; and if so, then the person is not guilty.” But, break that down further and the questions continue. What is “reasonable?” Is it what is reasonable to you, me, or the person next door? Is it an objective standard or a subjective standard? Isn’t everyone’s subjective “reasonableness” different? Yep. Wouldn’t that make “reasonableness” comparative? Nebulous? Yes, of course. After all, for a skydiver, jumping out of a plane traveling 300 miles per house at 20,000 feet is “reasonable,” but to someone scared of heights, jumping out of a first-floor window is very “unreasonable.” And, what does it mean by “beyond” a reasonable doubt? How far “beyond” must it be? Just barely? Or does it take more? We all know nothing can be 100% for sure, but is there a percentage we can look to that is close to a reasonable doubt? Nope. So what do we turn to for a definition? This is feeling more complicated than we originally thought, right?
Luckily, hundreds of years of jurisprudence and litigation in the United States, and Indiana specifically, have led to what are called “Pattern Jury Instructions.” What are those? When a jury is impaneled on any criminal case, the judge will give a jury two different full sets of instructions: (1) preliminary jury instructions (used before the State starts presenting evidence), and (2) final jury instructions (used after all evidence is presented). Those two packets of instructions are the road maps by which jurors can use to navigate their way to a verdict. Often times, a judge will point a jury back to those instructions if they ask questions during deliberations. It is in those instructions that there are a few different definitions of reasonable doubt. While helpful, they still don’t define a Brightline litmus test for beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s why jurors often spend a large part of their deliberations debating the definitions of reasonable doubt as compared to discussing the actual facts.
So what are the pattern jury instructions that discuss reasonable doubt? Here they are in their totality (emphasis added to important parts of the instructions):
Instruction No. 1.1500. Burden of Proof–Reasonable Doubt.
The burden is upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged. It is a strict and heavy burden. The evidence must overcome any reasonable doubt concerning the Defendant’s guilt. But it does not mean that a Defendant’s guilt must be proved beyond all possible doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a fair, actual and logical doubt based upon reason and common sense. A reasonable doubt may arise either from the evidence or from a lack of evidence. Reasonable doubt exists when you are not firmly convinced of the Defendant’s guilt, after you have weighed and considered all the evidence.
A Defendant must not be convicted on suspicion or speculation. It is not enough for the State to show that the Defendant is probably guilty. On the other hand, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty. The State does not have to overcome every possible doubt.
The State must prove each element of the crime(s) by evidence that firmly convinces each of you and leaves no reasonable doubt. The proof must be so convincing that you can rely and act upon it in this matter of the highest importance.
If you find that there is a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of the crime(s), you must give the Defendant the benefit of that doubt and find the Defendant not guilty of the crime under consideration.
Instruction No. 13.0900. Presumption of Innocence–Burden of Proof.
Under the law of this State, a person charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent. This presumption of innocence continues in favor of the Defendant throughout each stage of the trial and you should fit the evidence presented to the presumption that the Defendant is innocent, if you can reasonably do so.
If the evidence lends itself to two reasonable interpretations, you must choose the interpretation consistent with the defendant’s innocence. If there is only one reasonable interpretation, you must accept that interpretation and consider the evidence with all the other evidence in the case in making your decision.
To overcome the presumption of innocence, the State must prove the Defendant guilty of each element of the crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Defendant is not required to present any evidence to prove his innocence or to prove or explain anything.
Instruction No. 13.1000. Burden of Proof–Reasonable Doubt–Final Instruction.
The burden is upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged. It is a strict and heavy burden. The evidence must overcome any reasonable doubt concerning the Defendant’s guilt. But it does not mean that a Defendant’s guilt must be proved beyond all possible doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a fair, actual and logical doubt based upon reason and common sense. A reasonable doubt may arise either from the evidence or from a lack of evidence. Reasonable doubt exists when you are not firmly convinced of the Defendant’s guilt, after you have weighed and considered all the evidence.
A Defendant must not be convicted on suspicion or speculation. It is not enough for the State to show that the Defendant is probably guilty. On the other hand, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty. The State does not have to overcome every possible doubt.
The State must prove each element of the crime(s) by evidence that firmly convinces each of you and leaves no reasonable doubt. The proof must be so convincing that you can rely and act upon it in this matter of the highest importance. [In determining whether the guilt of the accused is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you should require that the proof be so conclusive and sure as to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence.]
If you find that there is a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of the crime(s), you must give the Defendant the benefit of that doubt and find the Defendant not guilty of the crime under consideration.
Broken down into the most important sound bites, a jury should think of the following things when weighing reasonable doubt:
- It is the State’s burden to find it
- The Defense need not do anything to dispute it and is presumed innocent
- It applies to all elements of the offense and all stages of the trial
- It is a strict and heavy burden
- It is a fair, actual, and logical doubt
- It need not be proven beyond all possible doubt
- The evidence should firmly convince
- It should be so convincing you can rely and act up on it on this matter of highest importance
- Proof should be so conclusive and sure as to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence
- It there are two reasonable interpretations, you must follow the one more favorable to the defense
- You should fit the evidence towards the defendant’s innocence if it is reasonable to do so
- If you find reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty
As you can see, it isn’t as straightforward as you think. Juries can spend hours debating each word of each one of those instructions. Notice that there is no direct authority on whether reasonableness is subjective (based on the individuals perceptions) or objective (based on an average person’s perceptions). Because the definition remains so nebulous, lawyers will often spend a lot of time in Voir Dire (jury selection) discussing these definitions. After all, if you can convince a jury as to what the definitions actually mean before trial, you hope they will follow that during their deliberations — although, alas, often times they forget. Nevertheless, it is crucial that you hire a lawyer that knows how to explain these difficult topics in a way that a layman would understand. If a lawyer can’t explain what reasonable doubt is to you, how can they explain it to a jury? When hiring a lawyer, that should be one of the questions you ask before handing over money.
If you or a loved one are facing a criminal allegation in Indiana, please give the experienced litigators at Banks & Brower, LLC a call today. We have been both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys in Indiana. That perspective and experience is unparalleled. Give us a call at 3178700019 or email us at info@banksbrower.com. We are available 24/7/365.