Every crime in California is defined by a specific code section. Our attorneys explain the law, penalties and best defense strategies for every major crime in California.
Crimes by Code
Every crime in California is defined by a specific code section. Our attorneys explain the law, penalties and best defense strategies for every major crime in California.
California DUI
DUI arrests don't always lead to convictions in court. Police officer mistakes, faulty breathalyzers and crime lab errors may get your charges reduced or dismissed. Visit our California DUI page to learn more.
Post Conviction
A criminal record can affect job, immigration, licensing and even housing opportunities. In this section, we offer solutions for clearing up your prior record.
Please note: Our firm only handles criminal and DUI cases, and only in California. We do not handle any of the following cases:
And we do not handle any cases outside of California.
Call Us NowPosted on
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the universal standard of proof for criminal prosecutions in state and federal courts in the United States. In other words, the prosecutor must demonstrate a person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict him or her of a criminal offense.
To meet this burden, most states say a prosecutor must present evidence that is so convincing of guilt that there is no reasonable question in the minds of the jurors that the defendant committed the crime charged.
The burden of proof is the highest evidentiary standard used in the criminal justice system. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies in both adult criminal proceedings and in the juvenile court system.
The standard is often contrasted with the preponderance of the evidence standard. This standard is the burden of proof in many civil cases where the plaintiff has to show that it is more likely than not that a fact is true.
The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is the legal standard used in criminal cases. This is to say that a prosecutor must prove all of the elements of a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to obtain a guilty verdict.1
If a prosecutor cannot meet this standard of proof during a criminal trial, the result is an acquittal (or the failure to secure a criminal conviction).
To meet the burden, most states say a prosecutor must present evidence that is so convincing of guilt that there is no question in the minds of the jurors that the defendant committed the crime charged.2
Courts sometimes say that a defendant is only proven guilty once a prosecutor can show, to a moral certainty, that the defendant committed a crime.3
Though these courts also say that the standard does not require a prosecutor to show, to an absolute certainty, that the accused committed an offense.4
Note that there is a presumption of innocence in the U.S. criminal court system. This means that you are presumed innocent of a crime until a prosecutor meets the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Furthermore, defendants have no duty or expectation to put on a defense. They never have to call a single witness or admit a single piece of evidence: The burden of proof is wholly on the prosecution.
Note, too, that the standard helps support the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.5
Typical evidence in criminal cases that both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys rely on include:
To rebut the state’s evidence, a criminal defense attorney may try to show that:
Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies in juvenile court.6
A prosecutor can meet this burden by presenting
Yes. Prior to deliberations in a criminal trial, a judge instructs jurors on what rules they should adhere to when deciding a case.
The Supreme Court has ruled that jury instructions must clearly inform jurors of the concept of reasonable doubt.7
Note that judges do not have to provide jurors with a quantifiable definition of what counts as reasonable doubt.
No. The “preponderance of the evidence standard” is the standard of proof in many civil cases.
To meet this standard, a plaintiff has to show that it is more likely than not that a fact is true.8
Most jurisdictions say that “more likely than not” means that it is more than 50 percent likely that a fact is true.
A preponderance of the evidence standard applies in most civil cases, including those involving:
Note that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a higher standard to meet than the preponderance of the evidence standard.
The “clear and convincing evidence” standard is yet another burden of proof used in civil court proceedings.
Plaintiffs will satisfy this standard by presenting enough evidence that shows that there is a high probability that a fact is true. In numbers, clear and convincing evidence is about 75% likely.
In other words, a factfinder (or a judge or jury) must be able to use the evidence presented to determine that it is highly and substantially more likely that a particular fact is true rather than untrue.9
Jurisdictions differ in terms of what type of case or legal proceeding this standard will apply to. Typically, though, parties will have to meet this burden in civil cases involving:
The clear and convincing standard is a higher standard to meet than the preponderance of the evidence standard. But it is a lower standard than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
A former Los Angeles prosecutor, attorney Neil Shouse graduated with honors from UC Berkeley and Harvard Law School (and completed additional graduate studies at MIT). He has been featured on CNN, Good Morning America, Dr Phil, The Today Show and Court TV. Mr Shouse has been recognized by the National Trial Lawyers as one of the Top 100 Criminal and Top 100 Civil Attorneys.