Reasonable Doubt What is the Standard Suppose to Be & What Is Your Interpretation

[Hershon]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

For some reason, as I've never been a juror, I never gave thought to what the standard of reasonable doubt is suppose to be and what people interpret it to be, so I thought I'd ask for opinions here. What I'm particularly puzzled by is, if say the defense presents an argument in
a murder case like that guy Neil Entwistle from England who killed his American Wife and Child, and says she committed suicide, that maybe there was say a 5% of being true, is that reasonable doubt? If not, would 1% chance of being true, be reasonable doubt. How about less then 1% but more the 0? If the guy hadn't run off to England and not called 911 and not returned the gun to his father in laws collection, maybe I'd say there was a chance over 0 she committed suicide, but in this case I'd say no way. What is your standard in general, particularly if something could happen the way the defense says, but the odds are not say over 25%?

 

[CdwJava]

This is the definition in CA as defined in Penal Code section 1096:

Reasonable doubt is defined as follows:
"It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to
human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is
that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and
consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that
condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of
the truth of the charge."​

- Carl

 

[Hershon]

Thanks for that definition

I wonder if other states have similar ones. I still also wonder what people interpret it to be anything over 0%, 5% 10%, etc?

 

[tigerlily18]

I have served on a jury and I believe Carl is correct. You must listen to both sides of the case and then determine if the defense proved that there is reasonable doubt that the defendent did indeed commit the crime. I never tried to break it down into what percent of a doubt there was I just knew that there was a legitamate doubt in my mind that the man was guilty.

 

[Just Blue]

I wonder if other states have similar ones. I still also wonder what people interpret it to be anything over 0%, 5% 10%, etc?

It's possible that a long lost relative will leave you 5 million dollars in his will. Is it reasonable to doubt this happening?? YES!

Is it reasonable to doubt the attorney for Entwistle who claims that the wife committed suicide in that manner?? Yes...even though it is possible she did.

BTW: Neil is guilty. So wasn't the Nanny.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Some states define the standard, many do not. Either way I think it is literally impossible to equate it to a specific percentage, (ex: 95%, 99%, etc..) because the standard is supposed to mean different things to different people. Everyone will require different things before being firmly convinced of guilt, which is really what the standard tries to achieve.

The way I explain the standard to people is that they must ask whether they have a doubt about the case. They must then ask whether that doubt goes to one of the elements of the offense. If so, then they must then ask whether that doubt is a reasonable one. In the end, juries just tend to go with their gut and with the guts of the other juries who they deliberate with.