Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: 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 jurors or judge have 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.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation,
the standard of proof is either proof by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE or proof by clear and
convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means
that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and
Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true.
The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such
proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These
outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.

Due Process of Law

A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given
notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's
life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or
capricious.

The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their
basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the Fifth Amendment,
ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law." This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it.
The Due Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares,"[N]or shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (§ 1). This clause limits the
powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme
Court in the twentieth century to incorporate protections of the Bill of Rights, so that those protections
apply to the states as well as to the federal government. Thus, the Due Process Clause serves as the
means whereby the Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal
government.

The concept of due process originated in English Common Law. The rule that individuals shall not be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without notice and an opportunity to defend themselves predates
written constitutions and was widely accepted in England. The Magna Charta, an agreement signed in
1215 that defined the rights of English subjects against the king, is an early example of a constitutional
guarantee of due process. That document includes a clause that declares, "No free man shall be seized,
or imprisoned … except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land" (ch. 39). This
concept of the law of the land was later transformed into the phrase "due process of law." By the
seventeenth century, England's North American colonies were using the phrase "due process of law" in
their statutes.

The application of constitutional due process is traditionally divided into the two categories of Substantive
Due Process and procedural due process. These categories are derived from a distinction that is made
between two types of law. Substantive Law creates, defines, and regulates rights, whereas procedural
law enforces those rights or seeks redress for their violation. Thus, in the United States, substantive due
process is concerned with such issues as Freedom of Speech and privacy, whereas procedural due
process is concerned with provisions such as the right to adequate notice of a lawsuit, the right to be
present during testimony, and the right to an attorney

Preponderance of Evidence

A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action.

In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the
respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim.
When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough
evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil
claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and
convincing evidence. A third standard, proofBeyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and
very few civil cases.

The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A
preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not
that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to
evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining
whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.

The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or
legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one
of clear and convincing evidence.

Under some circumstances use of the low preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of
constitutional rights. For example, if a state seeks to deprive natural parents of custody of their children,
requiring only proof by a preponderance of evidence is a violation of the parents' DUE PROCESS rights
(Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 [1982]). Freedom in matters of
family life is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government cannot take it away with only a modest
evidentiary standard. However, a court may use a preponderance of evidence standard when a mother
seeks to establish that a certain man is the father of her child (Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 107 S. Ct.
3001, 97 L. Ed. 2d 473 [1987]). Most states use the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases
because they have an interest in ensuring that fathers support their children

Clear and Convincing Proof

A standard applied by a jury or by a judge in a nonjury trial to measure the probability of the truthfulness
of particular facts alleged during a civil lawsuit.

Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial is more highly
probable to be true than not and the jury or judge has a firm belief or conviction in it. A greater degree of
believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions,PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE, which requires that the facts more likely than not prove the issue for which they are asserted.
The standard of clear and convincing proof—also known as "clear and convincing evidence"; "clear,
convincing, and satisfactory"; "clear, cognizant, and convincing"; and "clear, unequivocal, satisfactory,
and convincing"—is applied only in particular cases, primarily those involving an equitable remedy, such
as reformation of a deed or contract for mistake

CRIMES
Harmful act or omission against the public which the State wishes to prevent and
which, upon conviction, is punishable by fine, imprisonment, and/or death.
No conduct constitutes a crime unless it is declared criminal in the laws of the country.
Some crimes (such as theft or criminal damage) may also be civil wrongs (torts) for
which the victim(s) may claim damages in compensation.