Anonymous said on August 30, 2007  

Canada's Supreme Court decided a case that defines how reasonable doubt should and should not be explained to a jury. Your thoughts?

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1997/1997rcs3-320/1997rcs3-320.html

39 Instructions pertaining to the requisite standard of proof in a criminal trial of proof beyond a reasonable doubt might be given along these lines:



The accused enters these proceedings presumed to be innocent. That presumption of innocence remains throughout the case until such time as the Crown has on the evidence put before you satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.



What does the expression “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?



The term “beyond a reasonable doubt” has been used for a very long time and is a part of our history and traditions of justice. It is so engrained in our criminal law that some think it needs no explanation, yet something must be said regarding its meaning.



A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must not be based upon sympathy or prejudice. Rather, it is based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.



Even if you believe the accused is probably guilty or likely guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances you must give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquit because the Crown has failed to satisfy you of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.



On the other hand you must remember that it is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty and the Crown is not required to do so. Such a standard of proof is impossibly high.

In short if, based upon the evidence before the court, you are sure that the accused committed the offence you should convict since this demonstrates that you are satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Anonymous said on August 12, 2012  

Please forgive me for this very belated reply, but the
reasonable doubt question fascinates me, so I submit
just in case this might still be timely.

What I would suggest is an updated version of the
old "to a moral certainty," which when correctly
understood really does get across the 18th-century
concept of the highest level of proof one can have
about historical events, as opposed to logical or
mathematical demonstrations.

Here I use "to a practical certainty," and suggest
that jurors should be asked to judge whether the
evidence is so "overwhelming and compelling" (a step
beyond "clear and convincing") that it gives the
defendant's guilt the reality of "an established
historical fact."

* * *

"You must return a verdict of not guilty unless you
find that the evidence is so overwhelming and
compelling that it establishes the defendant's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt, or to a practical
certainty. The law does not require proof beyond any
possible doubt, or to an absolute certainty, because
any historical event or aspect of human affairs is
open to some possible or speculative doubt.
Nevertheless, we accept many historical events as
established facts: for example, the inauguration of
President George Washington in 1789; or the first
landing of humans on the Moon in 1969.

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or to a practical
certainty, is the highest standard of proof known to
the law. While it does not require absolute certainty,
it goes far beyond a conclusion that the defendant's
guilt is more likely than not, or even highly
probable. It is your duty to return a verdict of
guilty if, and only if, upon careful consideration,
you find the evidence as a whole is so compelling that
it excludes every reasonable possibility of innocence
and gives the defendant's guilt the force and reality
of an established historical fact."