What Do The Terms "Presumption Of Innocence" and "Reasonable Doubt" Mean?

Recently I came across a jury instruction given in a criminal case presided over by the Hon. Robert H. Whaley, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, that explains better than any jury instruction I have ever seen what the terms "presumption of innocence" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" really mean.

The law presumes a Defendant to be innocent of a crime. This is not an idle presumption or one that we merely give lip service to. The presumption of innocence is a basic and most important part of our criminal justice system. It is a true presumption of innocence that exists at the start of the trial and that continues throughout the trial. The presumption of innocence alone is a proper basis for a finding of not guilty unless all twelve jurors are convinced that the prosecution has established the guilt of the Defendant by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is always upon the prosecution. There is no burden what-so-ever on a Defendant to prove his or her innocence or to call any witnesses or to produce any evidence.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be proof of such a convincing nature that you would not hesitate to rely and act upon such evidence in making the most important decisions in your own life. It is not necessary, however, for the Government to establish guilt beyond all possible doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof in our justice system.

The scale of burdens in our justice system starts with a preponderance of the evidence. That means "more likely than not." Obviously, proof that is more likely than not does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The next highest burden of proof in our system is by "clear and convincing evidence," which is much higher than the preponderance of the evidence. "Clear and convincing evidence" means that the evidence meets a "highly probable" standard. Even "highly probable" clear and convincing evidence does not establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A reasonable doubt may arise not only from the evidence, but also from a lack of evidence. If you, as a jury, after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, finds that the prosecution has not met its burden of proving a Defendant is guilty of a charge by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is your duty and obligation to return a Not Guilty ("Not Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt") verdict to that charge. On the other hand, if the prosecution has established the guilt of the Defendant on a charge by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is your duty and obligation to return a guilty ("Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt") verdict to that charge.

Because this instruction gives real meaning to these important concepts, the government always opposes it. There would be fewer wrongful convictions at trial if other judges would give juries this instruction of law.