Reasonable Doubt

* He goes on to say that the law requires a reasonable doubt to acquit someone, but he thinks that a shadow of a doubt should be enough – as long as there’s the possibility that the accused is innocent.

The issue within this paper focuses on the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable doubt. The two appear similar in many ways as both require the best judgment of the law enforcement personnel. But they are in fact different, and all law enforcement must know the difference in order for the evidence to be admissible in court. Law enforcement is obligated to follow the protocols and procedures outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court; if law enforcement does not follow the laws, perpetrators could be released and free to commit more crimes. Proving probable cause and reasonable suspicion are imperative to avoid violating the rights of citizens.

Burden proof in a civil case that is a based on the “preponderance of evidence.” In criminal cases, because an individual accused with a crime (defendant) is alleged to be innocent until proven guilty, the prosecution must prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This does not mean beyond all possible or hypothetical doubt, but it does mean the court or jury must have an accepting conviction to a moral assurance of the truth of the charge. Since, a person’s freedom is at risk, the standard for prosecutors attesting the case is necessarily a higher burden than the proof required in a civil case.

Probable cause is a requirement which can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment that must usually be met before an arrest can be made, before being allowed to conduct a search, seize property, and to receive a warrant which is related to the alleged crime. Probable cause is considered a level of reasonable belief, probable cause must be based on facts and not an assumption. In civil court, a person can be sued if they have probable cause, and in criminal court, the defendant can be prosecuted or arrested if they also have probable cause. If the officer cannot prove probable cause, unfortunately, the evidence then becomes inadmissible, and the evidence will be thrown out.

In the United States criminal justice system, people are considered innocent until proven guilty. It is the job of the prosecution to “overcome the defendant’s presumption of innocence.” (Storm, 2012, p. 75) This is also referred to as the burden of proof (or proof beyond a reasonable doubt) in a criminal prosecution. Specifically, it means “the obligation to prove a disputed charge, allegation, or defense.” (Storm, 2012, p. 74) Two components of the burden of proof are the burden of production (presenting evidence to the judge or jury) and the burden of persuasion (convincing the judge or jury). (Storm, 2012, p. 75) Proof beyond reasonable doubt “is determined by examining the quality and quantity of the evidence presented.”

1. In a criminal trial, the defendant must be proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt?

In Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, an officer was patrolling a high crime area known for shoplifters and pick pockets. The officer witnessed Terry and a second suspect walk by a store and glance inside the window twenty-four times. The suspects uncooperative identification proceeded to a brief pat down. Terry requires specific and articulable facts in light of the officer’s training and experience built on the totality of the circumstances. The Supreme Court approved the lawful stop and frisk under the Fourth Amendment based on reasonable suspicion. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, an officer performed a traffic stop for an expired license plate, asked the driver to exit the vehicle

While reasonable suspicion does not require hard evidence, it does require more than a hunch. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually insignificant, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. For example, police may have reasonable suspicion to detain someone who fits a description of a criminal suspect, a suspect who drops a suspicious object after seeing police, or a suspect in a high crime area who runs after seeing police.

A Civil court is as the name implies a court system based on disputes between average citizens which are far different from a criminal court where you are dealing with convicts. Just like a criminal court, a civil court also has a set of procedures listed by the judicial system in 1937 with over 86 different rules. Civil cases usually involve disputes between people or organizations. The court case Fenton v. Dudley in 2014. Fenton V. Dudley is “A lawsuit against lawyers who had filed a Fair Housing Act lawsuit against the plaintiff, which is the person who filed the lawsuit, and it later made its way from federal court to state court” (“Civil Rights -- federal court jurisdiction”). Both Civil and Criminal court both have the privilege of a trial by jury, depending on the circumstance.

Specifically, in a criminal trial, it is the role of the jury to determine a “guilty” or a “not guilty” verdict which is set in place by the standard “beyond a reasonable doubt” meaning that even with the slightest indication of doubt, the defendant must be found not guilty. This standard places the burden of proof with the prosecution to ensure the judge or

Burden of proof is the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact. Burden of proof needs evidence and facts to back up the idea of it. In the most basic concept of burden proof, the defense has to prove innocence and the prosecution has to prove the guilt. The standard of proof in a criminal trial gives the prosecutor a much greater burden than the plaintiff in a civil trial. The defendant must be found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which means the evidence must be so compelling that there is no possible reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. In most criminal cases, the burden of proof falls upon the prosecution, who must demonstrate the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her.

The purpose of civil law is to “deal with the disputes between individuals, organizations, or between the two, in which compensation is awarded to the victim,” (“Civil Law vs Criminal Law.”, 2012). Civil law applies when there is a dispute between private parties, and the government is not involved. The lack of government involvement also leads to easier negotiations. Civil cases can be much more flexible since there is typically no law being broken and thus, no legal actions have to be taken. The less rigid civil law cases also generally allow them to be settled quickly and without controversy. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than half of general civil trials conclude in state courts, meaning they are able to reach an agreement and do not have to continue spending unnecessary time and money on the case (“Civil Justice.”, 2017).

The term reasonable suspicion refers to proof that is less that probable cause, but more than just a hunch. Reasonable suspicion can be used to make brief stops, and even detention of a suspect, until a police officer can complete an investigation of a crime. Reasonable suspicion is information that a reasonable law enforcement officer would believe that a crime has, was or is about to occur, using his or her training.

The level of proof required in a criminal trial is: “proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses).” (Garland 17) Meaning that if the judge has no doubt on the defendant's guilt based on the evidence provided he will be sentenced as guilty. On the other hand, in a civil trial, all that is needed is proof by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which means that one side of the case has more proof than the other resulting in a small margin of difference between the case verdict.

Reasonable doubt is something that is derived from probable suspicion of a person or an event in different cases. People are forced to act in a certain way and their actions are justified if they have reasonable suspicion. It is really important that for reasonable suspicion that the person you are doubtful of shows some sort of suspicious behavior or attitude that justifies the doubt. A person who is doing something based on reasonable suspicion need to have some gathered facts that support his suspicion; otherwise it won’t really be something that can be qualified as reasonable suspicion.