Each year, thousands of Indianapolis-area residents face criminal charges, with cases ranging from violent and drug crimes to white-collar crime and drunk driving—and everything in between. Any given criminal case has the potential to go to a jury trial—if the defendant believes that is the best option. If that occurs, defendants will undoubtedly become familiar with a common term: “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
So, what does “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean? Anyone who has ever seen a criminal trial may have heard attorneys explain this standard in any number of ways. This is, after all, the “burden of proof” that prosecutors must meet in order to secure a conviction against a defendant.
Defining a standard
In essence, “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that a jury must be almost completely certain of a defendant’s guilt before the jury reaches a guilty verdict. Obviously, the evidence that law enforcement officials and prosecutors have gathered and presented in any given case is crucial to see if they can meet this burden, but the defendant’s version of events and any potential evidence on that side can be key as well.
In the end, the result of a jury trial comes down to what each individual member of the jury ultimately believes about the evidence that was presented in the trial. If any member of the jury has doubts—serious doubts—a “not guilty” verdict may be the end result of the trial. Anyone in the Indianapolis area who is facing criminal charges will want to carefully consider pushing the case to a jury trial as a potential option.