Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is an Incredibly High Burden in Minnesota.

If you are facing criminal charges here in Minnesota or anywhere across the United States, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof. However, to understand this incredibly high standard, it may be helpful to compare it to the other possible standards of proof. This is the purpose of this article. If you are facing serious criminal charges in Minnesota, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney.   

“Think of the different standards of proof as rungs on a ladder. The higher up, the higher the standard. Keep climbing the rungs and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is at the top.”

Evidentiary Standards and Burden of Proof - Some Basics

Every courtroom in the world including Minnesota has their own rules and standards to determine if somebody is responsible for or guilty of a crime. While there are many distinctions, we will focus on two. One is burden of proof and the of there is standard of proof.

Burden of Proof

While courts around the world differ, in Minnesota and across the United States, it is the government, the prosecutor who must prove that somebody did the thing they are accused of. The person accused, known as the Defendant, doesn’t necessarily have to prove anything. The burden is on the State.  That is the case here in Minnesota.

Standard of Proof

The standard of proof applies to the amount of evidence that is provided to the fact finder, be it a Judge or Jury, that would be necessary to meet the standard. The lower the standard, the less evidence that is necessary.  Obviously, the higher the standard, the evidence that is required to meet the burden.  Here is a look at a series of standards of proof sometimes found in proceedings from lowest to highest. Think lowest rung of the ladder, lowest standard of proof which would be insufficient for higher standard requirements:

• Reasonable Articulable Suspicion: This is the standard typically used by police officers when they stop somebody. It must be reasonable and not arbitrary but there is no need to know whether or even if somebody had committed a crime when the stop is made. This is a very low standard and it in itself is insufficient to arrest, let alone charge and absolutely enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the first rung of the ladder.;

• Probable Cause: This is really a totality of the circumstances standard. It is frequently used to arrest and charge but is also used to apply for things like search warrants. The standard requires police officers and judges “to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before (them), including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” So, in other words, listening to all of the evidence, a fair person would determine that it probably happened that way. This is not enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Preponderance of the Evidence: In the Preponderance of the Evidence standard. it is a little more likely true than not. One example might be a thousand pebbles in one hand and a thousand and one pebbles in the other. All it takes is one single pebble and nothing more, just a smidge. This is a preponderance. Again, this is not close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.;

• Clear and Convincing Evidence: This is a bit higher standard of proof. This is sometimes considered to be a high likelihood of probability. Some consider it about 75% likelihood that something happened. So, it is more than a little more than likely that it happened. There is enough evidence to say a high likelihood that they did it. Still, this is not enough for reasonable doubt. If there is a single doubt left, the state has failed to meet s burden.

• Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: This is simply the highest proof in American jurisprudence. In order to prove this, a jury must be convinced that the only reasonable way this event took place was that the defendant did it and the prosecutor proved each and every element by this standard. It is not beyond any doubt. However, if a reasonable person has even a single question at the end of all evidence that was not answered to their satisfaction, that reasonable question is reasonable doubt.

“A reasonable story put on by the state isn’t enough. They better prove their points and show the alternatives aren’t true. If they can’t, this leaves reasonable doubt on the table.”

Go with the Best

An experienced criminal defense attorney can effectively cross all of the state’s witnesses and put all of their evidence to the test. The purpose is to show its insufficiency. Also, the Defense can also bring in their own factual witnesses, character witnesses, experts and may even the defendant themselves to create additional doubt.  

In the end, the burden is always on the prosecutor to prove guilt.  If the prosecutor fails in their burden, and fails to answer every reasonable question by the jury, there is only one option for the jury, Not guilty.

If you are facing serious criminal charges in Minnesota, make sure you sit down with an experienced Minnesota criminal defense attorney.  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is absolutely a high standard but that doesn’t mean that a jury can’t be convinced of somebody’s guilty using questionable evidence.  They absolutely can and have.  

Jack Rice is a Board Certified Criminal Law Specialist, former prosecutor and former U.S. Federal Officer.  He is also the founder of Jack Rice Defense.  Contact Jack Rice Defense for a free confidential consultation or call 651-447-7650 or 612-227-1339.  Check out what others have said about Jack online.  Watch his videos and read his articles too. Jack’s got your back.