how to explain reasonable doubt to a jury reddit

In particular, the bloody glove that was found at OJ's house. They did this by 1) detailing how the CSI team bungled the evidence collection, and 2) introducing the possibility that evidence was planted for racist reasons. OJ was acquitted because the defense was able to establish reasonable doubt. In even simpler terms, it means there's more than a 50% chance that the person is guilty.Īlso, the standard of evidence is lower, so evidence that didn't make the cut in a criminal trial may be admissible in a civil one. This means that the proof of guilt has to show that the accused most likely committed the offense, even if it doesn't exactly meet the standard 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. In a civil suit, you need to prove the accused's guilt based on the preponderance of evidence. Also, in a criminal trial, the standards of the evidence provided in court are higher. Basically, the proof of guilt has to be considered 'overwhelming'. If there is any evidence that would give a normal, unbiased person reason to believe the accused may be innocent, they have to acquit them. This means that the evidence of guilt needs to be so strong that a normal, unbiased person would come to the conclusion that the accused committed the crime.

In a criminal trial, you need to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The standards of proof and evidence are very different.

How to explain reasonable doubt to a jury reddit