We use cookies to improve security, personalize the user experience, enhance our marketing activities (including cooperating with our marketing partners) and for other business use.
Click "here" to read our Cookie Policy. By clicking "Accept" you agree to the use of cookies. Read less
Jurors look at the evidence presented during the trial and use their common sense. If they're left with uncertain feelings about the guilt of the accused, that's reasonable doubt—it's like having a lingering question that just won’t go away.
Not in a courtroom setting. Every defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence, no matter the circumstances. It's a fundamental right in the legal process.
If the prosecution doesn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is entitled to a not guilty verdict. It's like a game where you need to score points to win, and if you don't, the other side walks away clean.
Reasonable doubt is the level of certainty a juror must have to convict someone. If you have any doubts that are reasonable and logical, you should not vote to convict. Think of it as 'better safe than sorry.'
The burden of proof falls on the prosecution. They have to convince the jury that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's on them to prove it, not on the accused to prove their innocence.
The presumption of innocence means that anyone accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. It's like saying you've got a clean slate until someone can show otherwise.