Reasonable doubt

[SoCalDem]

Mom baked a big ole chocolate cake, and set it on the table

She comes back into the kitchen and sees her 3 yr old with chocolate icing all over his hands & face.

She asks "WHO ATE ALL THE CAKE?"

The 9, 10 & 13 yr old show up and say.."Obviously ,he did" (pointing to the 3 yr old.)

He IS the only one with true "evidence" all over him

Reasonable doubt will tell her two important things:

1. the 3 yr old cannot reach the sink to wash up alone
2. the 3 yr old probably cannot eat a whole cake by himself.

Reasonable doubt is really just intuitive thinking about what's likely and what is not..

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. But the standard is actually stricter than that.

More probable than not, or what's likely and what's not, is the standard in civil trials, not criminal trials, and it's pretty easy to define. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, however, is a more difficult concept, which is why the Manafort jury asked the judge to define it. It doesn't mean there can be no doubt at all, but it does mean that whatever doubt might remain can't really make any sense. In the chocolate cake example it could be argued that even if a 3-year-old couldn't eat a whole cake, maybe he hid what he didn't eat. Or maybe his siblings framed him by eating the cake themselves and smearing chocolate on him so he'd be blamed. So there's your reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the 3-year old ate the whole cake could be that there was nobody else around who could have eaten it, and that he's been throwing up chocolate all evening - in other words, that there's no other reasonable explanation. An unreasonable explanation might be that a burglar broke in and stole the cake, but if there's no evidence of a break-in that doesn't raise a reasonable doubt.

In a criminal trial proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime. So what the discussion really comes down to is what is meant by "reasonable." In Manafort's case the defense might argue, for example, that the tax returns were forgeries; but if there's no evidence of that, it doesn't raise a reasonable doubt. Or they could argue that he signed the tax returns while sleep-walking and so didn't actually intend to defraud the government, or that the alleged crimes were committed by Manafort's evil twin. These are not reasonable explanations. For there to be reasonable doubt there would have to be other explanations that could be logically possible, even if improbable.

[Igel]

2. But then if somebody said the neighbor also had chocolate cake

and the 3 year old could have been there, perhaps he's actually innocent.

Or if the bowl had some chocolate icing left in it and that icing can't be accounted for.

Or if the other kids showed up, looked around, and asked where their friend was ... Because he *loves* chocolate cake and excused himself 20 minutes earlier to go to the bathroom. And never returned.

Or perhaps the sinks and towels are dry, so there's no good evidence that the older kids washed up.

Lots of things could create reasonable doubt.

If knowledge of something is required, show that perhaps the person didn't necessarily have knowledge. Produce other plausible explanations. Innocent until proven guilty, not "innocent until it seems likely he maybe did it."