The bottom line is that prosecutors in any case in Los Angeles, whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony, must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, trying to figure out exactly what that means is not always easy. There is a jury instruction — specifically, the one used in Los Angeles, CALCRIM 103—that pertains to Reasonable Doubt. It essentially states that the judge informs the jury, 'I will now explain the presumption of innocence and the People's burden of proof. '
The defendant has pleaded not guilty to the charges. The fact that a criminal charge has been filed against a defendant is not evidence that the charge is true. You must not be biased against a defendant just because he or she has been arrested, charged with a crime, or brought to trial.
This is the beginning of the explanation of 'beyond a reasonable doubt, ' as it discusses how, at the start of the trial, a defendant is presumed innocent, meaning they're not considered guilty. The jury, as the ultimate arbiter of justice, plays a crucial role in this process. If the jury had to vote correctly, then they'd have to vote not guilty, and I ask that question frequently to emphasize this very important point.
Burden of Proof
It also says the People have the burden of proof. That means whoever is prosecuting the case — whether they be the District Attorney, the City Attorney, in a federal case, the Assistant United States Attorney — must prove the case. If they don't prove the case, then there is no type of guilty verdict.
The bottom line is that if they don't prove the case, the defense can rest on the state of the evidence, meaning they can say, ' Listen, these guys haven't proved the case. ' I don't have to say a word because if they haven't proved all the elements of what they've charged the client with, it's a not-guilty verdict. This is an important aspect of the trial process, as it ensures that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout the trial.
Another thing it's talking about — and this is definitely true in criminal cases, and it's important that they put this because a lot of people think this way — just because somebody is charged doesn't mean they're guilty. Just because somebody is charged, you shouldn't be looking at that person in a negative light. You should keep an open mind and listen to the evidence, and if the prosecutors can't prove their case, then you should find the defendant not guilty.
Presumption of Innocence
The instruction continues from the Judge to the jury, stating that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption requires the Prosecution to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the People must prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt unless I specifically tell you otherwise. This means that the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish guilt.
This is where it becomes very nebulous and confusing, as they repeatedly mention the term 'reasonable doubt.' ' I think what it really boils down to is a jury is going to listen to the evidence, and if they don't feel that this person should be convicted of this particular crime, they're going to find him not guilty.
There are some other terms that they use. Still, they just keep saying beyond a reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence over and over again, thinking somehow that's going to explain exactly what the standard is because, really, that's what the jurors are looking at.
I've conducted numerous trials, and I've seen them come back and say, ' We don't totally understand this instruction,' and they're really just looking for guidance on what the prosecutors have to prove and to what degree they've to prove it. It's not just a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50%). It's something higher than that, but it really needs to be explained to the jurors, and that's what I try to do in the closing argument when I look at this.
Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
So, the instruction goes on: proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. This is the essence of 'reasonable doubt, ' a concept that may seem nebulous but is crucial to our legal system.
One side represents the defense, and the other side represents the prosecution. Obviously, when I argue, I will argue the defense point. When they look back ten years from now, they're going to have to say, ' Okay, I feel confident that the person is guilty,' if that's their finding.
However, if they can't do that, if they're unsure, or if they don't believe the prosecution has presented all the evidence, then it's a not guilty verdict, period. A 'not guilty' verdict means that the jury has not been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. It does not mean the jury has found the defendant innocent, but rather that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof, and the defendant is acquitted of the charges.
The last thing the judge reads to the jury in a criminal case when they're talking about the whole concept of beyond a reasonable doubt is, in deciding whether the People have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all of the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. The jury's role is to carefully evaluate the evidence presented by both sides and to determine whether the prosecution has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they are entitled to an acquittal, and you must find them not guilty.
Again, they will continue to use the term' reasonable doubt' without clearly defining it or explaining it. I just think that they feel — the Judges who put together these jury instructions in Los Angeles Criminal Courts — that that's just as good as they're going to do it, that it can't get much better than that. People are just going to have to listen to the evidence, get a feel for it, and then make an informed decision about whether or not the prosecutors have brought enough evidence so they feel comfortable finding the defendant guilty or if they feel the defense has put on a very strong argument, they feel confident finding the defendant not guilty.
Related:
