|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
All the incoming links to this redirect are intended for the "burden of proof" meaning, not the album Reasonable Doubt, so this is clearly the more appropriate redirect. Slideshow Bob 19:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Even if so, there should still be a link on the burden of proof page to the album upon a redirect, especially since the album does have a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:33, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Beyond a reasonable doubt
In a criminal case the state must prove the critical facts of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The critical facts of a case are that the crime charged was committed and that the defendant is responsible for the commission of the crime. The critical facts of the case are often referred to as the elements of the case. Braodly speaking most elements fall in one of four categories: acts, circumstances, consequences and states of mind. For example, North Carolina has an offense of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. The act is assault; circumstances, with a deadly weapon; consequences, inflicting serious bodily injury and state of mind intent to kill. As stated the states has the responsibiity of establishing each of these elments from the evidence presented at trial and beyond a reasonable doubt. The word beyond means to the exclusion of. thus the state must exclude all reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. Simply put if after considering all the evidence, the arguments of counsel and the court's instructions a juror has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt it is the duty of the juror to return a verdict of not guilty. On the other hand if the juror does not have a reasonable doubt then the juror's duty is to return a verdict of guilty. --Jgard5000 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)jgard5000--Jgard5000 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) It is important to note that the word beyond does not carry its ordinary meaning of more than or facther than. The state clearly is not attempting to prove that there is more than a reasonable doubt.
Attempts to define or quantify reasonable doubt are fraught with danger. Courts have used terms such as fully satisfied or entirely convinced which arguably could be interpreted as requiring virtual certainty. Other courts have approved the use of phrases such as firmly convinced which may well understate the degree of proof.
The lead paragraph mentions the concept of a 'reasonable person' yet I was under the impression that this concept, though very important when assessing the actions of an accused, was not relevant to the concept of 'reasonable doubt' inasmuch as the latter relates only to the reasoning and judgment of the jury. In other words, the jury members must consider their own personal level of doubt and assess whether it exceeds the threshold represented by "beyond (a) reasonable doubt".
There is no need (and it would be improper) to think about the evidence in terms of the 'reasonable person' and what such a person might or might not think about the matter at hand. Alternatively, one might say that the jury is not intended to be a collection of 'reasonable people', rather a jury is made up of one's peers (reasonable or otherwise).
Does anyone have a good/reliable reference to clarify this point? — RB Ostrum. 03:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Casey Anthony case
Linda D. Burdick had it correct when she stated to the Jury "My worst fear is that you will throw common sense out the window. She also said the defense theory must Make Sense. This jury felt as though Reasonable Doubt referred to ANY Doubt, That's where this went all wrong. According to the Jury's own statements (the one's that came out of hiding to charge for interviews) Both stated that Not Guilty Verdict did not mean Innocent.....What does that tell you?
I believe several things happened, The Judge Perry's Jury Instruction , Followed by the Verdict sheet instruction CONFUSED this Jury as they dd not understand the term Reasonable Doubt and both Jurors who came forth made a statement regarding they could not take someone's Life??? Ironically they could have found her guilty of lesser Inclusives all the way down to Manslaughter or Child Abuse/ Neglect neither of which is a life sentence.
Conclusion : Casey Marie Anthony IS Guilty of Murder in the 1st degree:
Reasonable Doubt: 1) Caylee Anthony is deceased 2) Doctor G. Stated ad confirmed the death to be a Homicide 3) No one puts duct tape over the mouth ad nose of a child who drowned in a swimming pool 4) The child was not reported missing for 31 days 5) Premeditation: Computer searches for Chloroform and Cindy Anthony perjured herself saying she did the searches when in fact employment records for Cindy and George prove they were at work and Casey was only one home. 6) Zenaida Gonzalez "Nanny"who was said to have taken the child do not exist None of her so-called friends existed they were all fictional characters. Hence she mentioned Zany the baby sitter way before the child was even "missing" she would leave her moms home with Caylee saying they were staying the night with Zany and yet same night she showed up at Tony Lazzaro's home stating Caylee was with "the nanny". Where was Caylee? I assure you Caylee was in the trunk of the car under the influence of Chloroform. On the night of Caylee's untimely death Casey also used duct tape Caylee never woke up.