454:(1994), the US Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the unclear reasonable doubt instructions at issue, but stopped short of setting forth an exemplary jury instruction. Reasonable doubt came into existence in English common law and was intended to protect the jurors from committing a potentially mortal sin, since only God may pass judgment on man. The idea was to ease a juror's concern about damnation for passing judgment upon a fellow man. Since there is no formal jury instruction that adequately defines reasonable doubt, and based on the origins of the doctrine and its evolution, reasonable doubt may be resolved by determining whether there exists an alternative explanation to the facts seems plausible. If yes, then there is reasonable doubt and the accused must be acquitted.
291:
duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of
England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.
265:
Body and Soul, in this world and that to come." It was also believed that "n every case of doubt, where one's salvation is in peril, one must always take the safer way. ... A judge who is in doubt must refuse to judge." It was in reaction to these religious fears that "reasonable doubt" was introduced in the late 18th century to
English common law, thereby allowing jurors to more easily convict. Therefore, the original use of the "reasonable doubt" standard was opposite to its modern use of limiting a juror's ability to convict.
442:: "The evidence upon which a jury is justified in returning a verdict of guilty must be sufficient to produce a conviction of guilt, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt." The U.S. Supreme Court extended the reasonable doubt standard to juvenile delinquency proceedings because they are considered quasi-criminal. "e explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."
1234:
36:
407:
Research published in 1999 found that many jurors were uncertain what "beyond reasonable doubt" meant. "They generally thought in terms of percentages, and debated and disagreed with each other about the percentage certainty required for 'beyond reasonable doubt', variously interpreting it as 100 per
403:
In New
Zealand, jurors are typically told throughout a trial that the offence must be proved "beyond reasonable doubt", and judges usually include this in the summing-up. There is no absolute prescription as to how judges should explain reasonable doubt to juries. Judges usually tell jurors that they
171:
and social stigma attached to a conviction. The prosecution is tasked with providing evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction; albeit prosecution may fail to complete such task, the trier-of-fact's acceptance that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable
231:
survey conducted in the United
Kingdom, participants were asked to quantify how accurate an evidence had to be before they could consider it to be beyond a reasonable doubt; 15% of Britons said they would accept an evidence that was 99% accurate, while 14% preferred an accuracy of no less than 100%,
394:
that an effective way to explain the concept is to tell the jury that proof beyond a reasonable doubt "falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities." It is not enough to believe that the accused is probably guilty, or likely guilty. Proof of probable guilt, or
313:
on the concept of "reasonable doubt" and noted that "he correct explanation of the requisite burden of proof is essential to ensure a fair criminal trial." While the Court did not prescribe any specific wording that a trial judge must use to explain the concept, it recommended certain elements that
290:
29 Times LR 350; 8 Cr App R 211, the headnote of which correctly states that where intent is an ingredient of a crime there is no onus on the defendant to prove that the act alleged was accidental. Throughout the web of the
English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the
264:
In
English common law prior to the reasonable doubt standard, passing judgment in criminal trials had severe religious repercussions for jurors. According to judicial law prior to the 1780s, "the Juryman who finds any other person guilty, is liable to the Vengeance of God upon his Family and Trade,
449:
to apply the reasonable doubt standard when determining the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant. However, courts have struggled to define what constitutes a reasonable doubt. There is disagreement as to whether the jury should be given a definition of "reasonable doubt." Some state courts
268:
Juries in criminal courts in
England and Wales are no longer customarily directed to consider whether there is reasonable doubt regarding a defendant's guilt. A 2008 conviction was appealed after the judge had said to the jury, "You must be satisfied of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt." The
223:. Therefore, jurisdictions using this standard often rely on additional or supplemental measures, such as a judge's specific instructions to a jury, to simplify or qualify reasonable doubt. Legal systems have tended to avoid quantifying the reasonable doubt standard (for example, "over 90%
285:
Juries are always told that, if conviction there is to be, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This statement cannot mean that in order to be acquitted the prisoner must "satisfy" the jury. This is the law as laid down in the Court of
Criminal Appeal in
437:
held that "the Due
Process clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged." The US Supreme Court first discussed the term in
273:
made clear their unhappiness with the judge's remark, indicating that the judge should instead have said to the jury simply that before they can return a verdict of guilty, they "must be sure that the defendant is guilty".
788:, 242 (SCC 2000) ("In my view, an effective way to define the reasonable doubt standard for a jury is to explain that it falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities.").
404:
will be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt if they "feel sure" or "are sure" that the defendant is guilty. In line with appellate court direction, judges do little to elaborate on this or to explain what it means.
172:
doubt will in theory lead to conviction of the defendant. A failure for the trier-of-fact to accept that the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been met thus entitles the accused to an
526:
Grechenig, Nicklisch & Thoeni, Punishment
Despite Reasonable Doubt - A Public Goods Experiment with Sanctions under Uncertainty, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (JELS) 2010, vol. 7 (4), p. 847-867
208:
factfinder less than fully convinced of the defendant's guilt. Accordingly, the standard of proof forces the factfinder to ignore unreasonable doubts—doubts that are frivolous, hypothetical, or
1608:
1980:
1851:
607:
820:
468:, which was instituted by the Supreme Court during a controversial murder trial in 1975 (the Shiratori case brought before the Supreme Court of Japan, see for example notes on
295:
In recent years the preferred terminology used is simply "sure" – juries are told they must be "satisfied that they are sure" of the defendant's guilt in order to convict.
1112:
1996:
380:
By instructing jurors that they may convict if they are "sure" that the accused is guilty, before providing them with a proper definition as to the meaning of the words
1552:
355:
By inviting jurors to apply to the task before them the same standard of proof that they apply to important, or even the most important, decisions in their own lives.
1730:
1648:
1576:
1891:
196:
of each criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. To do so, the prosecution must present compelling evidence that leaves little real doubt in the mind of the
1770:
1762:
1624:
1050:
966:
947:
916:
337:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty. It is not proof beyond any doubt, nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt.
247:, expressed a similar idea by requiring "proofs clearer than light" for criminal conviction. The formulation "beyond reasonable doubt" is characteristic of
1656:
1600:
1964:
1956:
1640:
1632:
2004:
1867:
1794:
1505:
1988:
1972:
1105:
1515:
227:"); legal scholars from a variety of analytical perspectives have argued in favor of quantification of the criminal standard of proof. In a 2019
168:
340:
More is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty. A jury that concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.
204:
guilty. For any reasonable doubt to exist, it must come from insufficient evidence, or conflicts within the evidence, that would leave an
1098:
408:
cent, 95 per cent, 75 per cent and even 50 per cent. Occasionally this produced profound misunderstandings about the standard of proof."
321:
The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with that principle fundamental to all criminal trials, the
20:
839:
621:
871:
594:
1447:
303:
In Canada, the expression "beyond a reasonable doubt" requires clarification for the benefit of the jury. The leading decision is
2072:
100:
1498:
72:
1366:
317:
The Supreme Court suggested that the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be explained to juries as follows:
2057:
79:
434:
1424:
1079:
833:
659:
331:
A reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice and, instead, is based on reason and common sense.
119:
53:
24:
2087:
1491:
1393:
421:
of the Court of Appeal set out a model jury direction on the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction.
86:
472:). However, this is not considered an essential standard in Japan and lower level judges sometimes disregard it.
57:
176:. This standard of proof is widely accepted in many criminal justice systems, and its origin can be traced to
1462:
68:
769:
540:
1467:
744:
2067:
1802:
344:
The Court also warned trial judges that they should avoid explaining the concept in the following ways:
1442:
553:, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): quantification of the 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' standard"
2047:
2082:
1944:
1325:
872:"Summing-up to juries in criminal cases – what jury research says about current rules and practice"
726:"The verdict and sentencing - Rape and Serious Sexual Assault | the Crown Prosecution Service"
322:
189:
152:
328:
The burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused.
1839:
1738:
1708:
911:
46:
462:
Since 1945, Japan has also operated by a "reasonable doubt" standard, including the doctrine of
2077:
1859:
1722:
1560:
1335:
1130:
803:
787:
430:
193:
156:
1483:
1457:
725:
433:
is that the accused is presumed innocent until guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The
314:
should be included in a jury charge, as well as pointing out comments that should be avoided.
93:
2062:
1915:
1778:
1746:
1592:
1273:
1054:
970:
951:
920:
867:
507:
418:
177:
144:
1616:
1313:
1278:
1190:
1165:
502:
213:
828:. Preliminary Paper 37. Vol. 2. Wellington, New Zealand: Law Commission. p. 54.
698:
8:
2052:
1330:
1072:
Rule of Law in Japan : A Comparative Analysis - What You See May Not Be What You Get
1012:
886:
220:
469:
2020:
1923:
1907:
1786:
1584:
1518:
1258:
1250:
1200:
1170:
1160:
1121:
1029:
973:
954:
923:
240:
164:
148:
544:
2012:
1883:
1875:
1700:
1409:
1283:
1268:
1205:
1090:
1075:
1057:
829:
655:
482:
446:
310:
997:
159:
because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be
1899:
1754:
1685:
1544:
1195:
1021:
564:
464:
711:
352:
as an ordinary expression that has no special meaning in the criminal law context.
1378:
1372:
1180:
1175:
649:
492:
201:
2092:
1664:
1419:
1319:
1210:
1185:
1155:
1150:
497:
334:
Reasonable doubt is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence.
209:
180:, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
1472:
358:
By equating proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" to proof "to a moral certainty".
219:
The definitions of the term "reasonable doubt" can be criticised for having a
2041:
1818:
1568:
1302:
943:
763:
487:
305:
197:
1810:
1414:
1388:
413:
270:
205:
192:, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant's guilt on every
160:
1452:
654:. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 28, 42, 61, 63, 67.
1429:
1356:
1351:
1291:
781:
569:
390:
244:
224:
1010:
Diamond, H. A. (1990). "Reasonable doubt: to define, or not to define".
1361:
1308:
1296:
1239:
1220:
1033:
248:
173:
1233:
1025:
680:
35:
528:
450:
have prohibited providing juries with a definition altogether. In
1215:
1139:
651:
The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal
19:"Beyond a reasonable doubt" redirects here. For other uses, see
1513:
1145:
819:
Young, Warren; Cameron, Neil; Tinsley, Yvette (November 1999).
626:
228:
309:, where the Supreme Court discussed the proper elements of a
155:(US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in
277:
The principle of "beyond reasonable doubt" was expounded in
1383:
1263:
818:
361:
By qualifying the word "doubt" with adjectives other than
608:
Legal v. Quantified Definitions of the Standard of Proof
232:
and 10% said it should be at least 90% or 95% accurate.
216:, since reasonable doubt entitles them to an acquittal.
151:. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of
1120:
675:
673:
671:
395:
likely guilt, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
1229:
388:
The Supreme Court of Canada has since emphasized in
668:
147:required to validate a criminal conviction in most
60:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
593:Pi, Daniel, Francesco Parisi, and Barbara Luppi,
2039:
1499:
1106:
814:
812:
810:
689:, George Mason University, February 25, 2008.
1943:
862:
860:
606:Kagehiro, Dorothy K. and W. Clark Staunton,
251:legal systems since the eighteenth century.
1063:
1506:
1492:
1113:
1099:
938:
936:
934:
932:
807:
757:
755:
753:
751:
200:(the judge or jury) that the defendant is
21:Beyond a reasonable doubt (disambiguation)
1074:. Kluwer Law International. p. 253.
857:
682:What Are the Origins of Reasonable Doubt?
568:
120:Learn how and when to remove this message
647:
622:"How large can a 'reasonable doubt' be?"
539:
1069:
1009:
992:
990:
988:
986:
984:
982:
929:
748:
2040:
1000:(2005), Faculty Scholarship Series. 1.
791:
732:
1942:
1838:
1837:
1683:
1530:
1487:
1094:
866:
773:
619:
1684:
1609:County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
1531:
979:
589:
587:
259:
58:adding citations to reliable sources
29:
822:Juries in Criminal Trials: Part Two
13:
1981:New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson
235:
14:
2104:
1425:Evidence law in the United States
998:The Origins of "Reasonable Doubt"
620:Smith, Matthew (3 October 2019).
584:
254:
243:, followed by the English jurist
25:Reasonable doubt (disambiguation)
1232:
701:EWCA Crim 2563 (12 October 2009)
597:72 Rutgers U. L. Rev. 455 (2020)
424:
212:to the evidence—and to consider
34:
1040:
1003:
960:
904:
718:
431:American criminal jurisprudence
269:conviction was upheld; but the
45:needs additional citations for
2073:Legal doctrines and principles
1279:Deferred prosecution agreement
704:
692:
641:
613:
600:
533:
520:
398:
183:
1:
514:
377:, which may mislead the jury.
214:evidence favoring the accused
595:Quantifying Reasonable Doubt
7:
1803:Youngblood v. West Virginia
610:9 L. Hum. Behav. 159 (1985)
475:
167:, as well as suffering the
10:
2109:
2058:American legal terminology
18:
1997:Mesarosh v. United States
1951:
1938:
1846:
1833:
1695:
1679:
1539:
1526:
1438:
1402:
1394:Presentence investigation
1344:
1249:
1227:
1129:
557:Law, Probability and Risk
382:beyond a reasonable doubt
298:
149:adversarial legal systems
1945:Prosecutorial misconduct
1553:Holland v. United States
1070:Goodman, Carl F (2003).
648:Franklin, James (2001).
457:
323:presumption of innocence
153:balance of probabilities
2088:Probabilistic arguments
1852:Bishop v. United States
1739:United States v. Bagley
1731:California v. Trombetta
1709:Giglio v. United States
912:Coffin v. United States
348:By describing the term
190:presumed to be innocent
188:Because a defendant is
169:collateral consequences
1860:Dusky v. United States
1723:United States v. Agurs
1561:Leary v. United States
1336:Statute of limitations
1131:Criminal investigation
440:Miles v. United States
293:
163:or, in extreme cases,
1916:Sell v. United States
1779:United States v. Ruiz
1747:Arizona v. Youngblood
1649:Sullivan v. Louisiana
1593:Patterson v. New York
1577:Cool v. United States
1274:Criminal jurisdiction
885:: 674. Archived from
508:Burden of proof (law)
283:
1892:Medina v. California
1617:Sandstrom v. Montana
1314:Inquisitorial system
1251:Criminal prosecution
1191:Reasonable suspicion
1166:Exigent circumstance
804: (SCC 2009).
770: (SCC 1997).
745: (SCC 1995).
714:UKHL 1 (23 May 1935)
687:History News Network
503:Reasonable suspicion
210:not logically linked
54:improve this article
1771:Strickler v. Greene
1763:Wood v. Bartholomew
1625:Jackson v. Virginia
1331:Preliminary hearing
1013:Columbia Law Review
996:Whitman, James Q.,
429:The cornerstone to
221:circular definition
161:deprived of liberty
2068:Criminal procedure
2021:McDonough v. Smith
1924:Indiana v. Edwards
1908:Cooper v. Oklahoma
1787:Illinois v. Fisher
1657:Victor v. Nebraska
1601:Taylor v. Kentucky
1585:Mullaney v. Wilbur
1259:Adversarial system
1201:Search and seizure
1171:Knock-and-announce
1122:Criminal procedure
1047:Victor v. Nebraska
892:on 3 November 2012
845:on 9 February 2013
570:10.1093/lpr/mgl017
452:Victor v. Nebraska
311:charge to the jury
241:Medieval Roman law
178:Blackstone's ratio
69:"Reasonable doubt"
2035:
2034:
2031:
2030:
2013:Napue v. Illinois
1965:Hysler v. Florida
1957:Mooney v. Holohan
1934:
1933:
1884:Riggins v. Nevada
1876:Drope v. Missouri
1840:Mental competence
1829:
1828:
1716:Moore v. Illinois
1701:Brady v. Maryland
1675:
1674:
1641:Cage v. Louisiana
1633:Murray v. Carrier
1481:
1480:
1463:Wikimedia Commons
1410:Criminal defenses
1345:Charges and pleas
1269:Bill of attainder
1206:Search of persons
712:Woolmington v DPP
679:James Q. Whitman
483:Critical thinking
279:Woolmington v DPP
260:England and Wales
145:standard of proof
130:
129:
122:
104:
2100:
2048:Sociology of law
2005:Alcorta v. Texas
1940:
1939:
1900:Godinez v. Moran
1868:Pate v. Robinson
1835:
1834:
1755:Kyles v. Whitley
1681:
1680:
1545:Leland v. Oregon
1533:Reasonable doubt
1528:
1527:
1508:
1501:
1494:
1485:
1484:
1242:
1237:
1236:
1196:Right to silence
1115:
1108:
1101:
1092:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1067:
1061:
1044:
1038:
1037:
1020:(6): 1716–1736.
1007:
1001:
994:
977:
964:
958:
940:
927:
908:
902:
901:
899:
897:
891:
876:
864:
855:
854:
852:
850:
844:
838:. Archived from
827:
816:
805:
801:
795:
789:
785:
777:
771:
767:
759:
746:
742:
736:
730:
729:
722:
716:
708:
702:
696:
690:
677:
666:
665:
645:
639:
638:
636:
634:
617:
611:
604:
598:
591:
582:
581:
579:
577:
572:
537:
531:
524:
470:Shigemitsu DandĹŤ
465:in dubio pro reo
435:US Supreme Court
350:reasonable doubt
202:almost certainly
141:reasonable doubt
125:
118:
114:
111:
105:
103:
62:
38:
30:
2108:
2107:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2083:Legal reasoning
2038:
2037:
2036:
2027:
1947:
1930:
1842:
1825:
1795:Banks v. Dretke
1691:
1671:
1535:
1522:
1512:
1482:
1477:
1434:
1398:
1379:Peremptory plea
1373:Nolo contendere
1340:
1245:
1238:
1231:
1225:
1181:Pretextual stop
1176:Miranda warning
1125:
1124:(investigation)
1119:
1089:
1082:
1068:
1064:
1045:
1041:
1026:10.2307/1122751
1008:
1004:
995:
980:
965:
961:
941:
930:
909:
905:
895:
893:
889:
874:
865:
858:
848:
846:
842:
836:
825:
817:
808:
797:
796:
792:
779:
778:
774:
761:
760:
749:
738:
737:
733:
724:
723:
719:
709:
705:
697:
693:
678:
669:
662:
646:
642:
632:
630:
618:
614:
605:
601:
592:
585:
575:
573:
541:Franklin, James
538:
534:
525:
521:
517:
512:
493:Moral certainty
478:
460:
445:Juries must be
427:
401:
301:
262:
257:
238:
236:By jurisdiction
186:
126:
115:
109:
106:
63:
61:
51:
39:
28:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2106:
2096:
2095:
2090:
2085:
2080:
2075:
2070:
2065:
2060:
2055:
2050:
2033:
2032:
2029:
2028:
2026:
2025:
2017:
2009:
2001:
1993:
1989:White v. Ragen
1985:
1977:
1973:Pyle v. Kansas
1969:
1961:
1952:
1949:
1948:
1936:
1935:
1932:
1931:
1929:
1928:
1920:
1912:
1904:
1896:
1888:
1880:
1872:
1864:
1856:
1847:
1844:
1843:
1831:
1830:
1827:
1826:
1824:
1823:
1815:
1807:
1799:
1791:
1783:
1775:
1767:
1759:
1751:
1743:
1735:
1727:
1719:
1713:
1705:
1696:
1693:
1692:
1677:
1676:
1673:
1672:
1670:
1669:
1665:Schlup v. Delo
1661:
1653:
1645:
1637:
1629:
1621:
1613:
1605:
1597:
1589:
1581:
1573:
1565:
1557:
1549:
1540:
1537:
1536:
1524:
1523:
1514:United States
1511:
1510:
1503:
1496:
1488:
1479:
1478:
1476:
1475:
1470:
1465:
1460:
1455:
1450:
1445:
1439:
1436:
1435:
1433:
1432:
1427:
1422:
1417:
1412:
1406:
1404:
1400:
1399:
1397:
1396:
1391:
1386:
1381:
1376:
1369:
1364:
1359:
1354:
1348:
1346:
1342:
1341:
1339:
1338:
1333:
1328:
1323:
1320:Nolle prosequi
1316:
1311:
1306:
1299:
1294:
1289:
1281:
1276:
1271:
1266:
1261:
1255:
1253:
1247:
1246:
1244:
1243:
1228:
1226:
1224:
1223:
1218:
1213:
1211:Search warrant
1208:
1203:
1198:
1193:
1188:
1186:Probable cause
1183:
1178:
1173:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1156:Consent search
1153:
1151:Arrest warrant
1148:
1143:
1135:
1133:
1127:
1126:
1118:
1117:
1110:
1103:
1095:
1088:
1087:
1080:
1062:
1039:
1002:
978:
959:
928:
903:
868:Young, William
856:
834:
806:
790:
772:
747:
731:
717:
703:
691:
667:
660:
640:
612:
599:
583:
563:(2): 159–165.
545:"Case comment—
532:
518:
516:
513:
511:
510:
505:
500:
498:Probable cause
495:
490:
485:
479:
477:
474:
459:
456:
426:
423:
400:
397:
386:
385:
378:
359:
356:
353:
342:
341:
338:
335:
332:
329:
326:
300:
297:
261:
258:
256:
255:United Kingdom
253:
237:
234:
185:
182:
128:
127:
42:
40:
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2105:
2094:
2091:
2089:
2086:
2084:
2081:
2079:
2078:Law of Canada
2076:
2074:
2071:
2069:
2066:
2064:
2061:
2059:
2056:
2054:
2051:
2049:
2046:
2045:
2043:
2023:
2022:
2018:
2015:
2014:
2010:
2007:
2006:
2002:
1999:
1998:
1994:
1991:
1990:
1986:
1983:
1982:
1978:
1975:
1974:
1970:
1967:
1966:
1962:
1959:
1958:
1954:
1953:
1950:
1946:
1941:
1937:
1926:
1925:
1921:
1918:
1917:
1913:
1910:
1909:
1905:
1902:
1901:
1897:
1894:
1893:
1889:
1886:
1885:
1881:
1878:
1877:
1873:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1862:
1861:
1857:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1848:
1845:
1841:
1836:
1832:
1821:
1820:
1819:Smith v. Cain
1816:
1813:
1812:
1808:
1805:
1804:
1800:
1797:
1796:
1792:
1789:
1788:
1784:
1781:
1780:
1776:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1765:
1764:
1760:
1757:
1756:
1752:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1741:
1740:
1736:
1733:
1732:
1728:
1725:
1724:
1720:
1717:
1714:
1711:
1710:
1706:
1703:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1694:
1690:
1688:
1682:
1678:
1667:
1666:
1662:
1659:
1658:
1654:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1643:
1642:
1638:
1635:
1634:
1630:
1627:
1626:
1622:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1611:
1610:
1606:
1603:
1602:
1598:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1587:
1586:
1582:
1579:
1578:
1574:
1571:
1570:
1569:In re Winship
1566:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1541:
1538:
1534:
1529:
1525:
1520:
1517:
1509:
1504:
1502:
1497:
1495:
1490:
1489:
1486:
1474:
1471:
1469:
1466:
1464:
1461:
1459:
1456:
1454:
1451:
1449:
1446:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1437:
1431:
1428:
1426:
1423:
1421:
1418:
1416:
1413:
1411:
1408:
1407:
1405:
1403:Related areas
1401:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1387:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1377:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1368:
1365:
1363:
1360:
1358:
1355:
1353:
1350:
1349:
1347:
1343:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1324:
1322:
1321:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1310:
1307:
1305:
1304:
1303:Habeas corpus
1300:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1290:
1288:
1286:
1285:Ex post facto
1282:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1272:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1257:
1256:
1254:
1252:
1248:
1241:
1235:
1230:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1184:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1134:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1116:
1111:
1109:
1104:
1102:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1083:
1081:9789041189035
1077:
1073:
1066:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1006:
999:
993:
991:
989:
987:
985:
983:
975:
972:
968:
963:
956:
953:
949:
946:
945:
944:In re Winship
939:
937:
935:
933:
925:
922:
918:
914:
913:
907:
888:
884:
880:
873:
869:
863:
861:
841:
837:
835:1-877187-42-9
831:
824:
823:
815:
813:
811:
800:
794:
784:
783:
776:
766:
765:
764:R. v. Lifchus
758:
756:
754:
752:
741:
735:
727:
721:
715:
713:
707:
700:
695:
688:
684:
683:
676:
674:
672:
663:
661:0-8018-6569-7
657:
653:
652:
644:
629:
628:
623:
616:
609:
603:
596:
590:
588:
571:
566:
562:
558:
554:
552:
548:
547:United States
542:
536:
530:
523:
519:
509:
506:
504:
501:
499:
496:
494:
491:
489:
488:Metacognition
486:
484:
481:
480:
473:
471:
467:
466:
455:
453:
448:
443:
441:
436:
432:
425:United States
422:
420:
416:
415:
409:
405:
396:
393:
392:
383:
379:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
357:
354:
351:
347:
346:
345:
339:
336:
333:
330:
327:
324:
320:
319:
318:
315:
312:
308:
307:
306:R. v. Lifchus
296:
292:
289:
288:Rex v. Davies
282:
280:
275:
272:
266:
252:
250:
246:
242:
233:
230:
226:
222:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:trier of fact
195:
191:
181:
179:
175:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
124:
121:
113:
102:
99:
95:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
74:
71: –
70:
66:
65:Find sources:
59:
55:
49:
48:
43:This article
41:
37:
32:
31:
26:
22:
2063:Criminal law
2019:
2011:
2003:
1995:
1987:
1979:
1971:
1963:
1955:
1922:
1914:
1906:
1898:
1890:
1882:
1874:
1866:
1858:
1850:
1817:
1811:Cone v. Bell
1809:
1801:
1793:
1785:
1777:
1769:
1761:
1753:
1745:
1737:
1729:
1721:
1715:
1707:
1699:
1686:
1663:
1655:
1647:
1639:
1631:
1623:
1615:
1607:
1599:
1591:
1583:
1575:
1567:
1559:
1551:
1543:
1532:
1415:Criminal law
1389:Plea bargain
1371:
1326:Precognition
1318:
1301:
1284:
1138:
1071:
1065:
1046:
1042:
1017:
1011:
1005:
962:
942:
910:
906:
894:. Retrieved
887:the original
882:
878:
847:. Retrieved
840:the original
821:
799:R. v. Layton
798:
793:
780:
775:
762:
740:R. v. Brydon
739:
734:
720:
710:
706:
694:
686:
681:
650:
643:
631:. Retrieved
625:
615:
602:
574:. Retrieved
560:
556:
550:
546:
535:
522:
463:
461:
451:
444:
439:
428:
417:, President
414:R v Wanhalla
412:
410:
406:
402:
389:
387:
381:
374:
370:
366:
362:
349:
343:
316:
304:
302:
294:
287:
284:
278:
276:
271:Appeal Court
267:
263:
239:
218:
187:
140:
136:
132:
131:
116:
107:
97:
90:
83:
76:
64:
52:Please help
47:verification
44:
1519:due process
1473:Wikiversity
1430:Legal abuse
1367:Information
1357:Arraignment
1352:Alford plea
1292:Extradition
1060: (1994)
976: (1880)
957: (1970)
926: (1895)
782:R. v. Starr
399:New Zealand
391:R. v. Starr
371:substantial
245:Edward Coke
225:probability
184:In practice
157:civil cases
143:is a legal
2053:Skepticism
2042:Categories
1689:disclosure
1458:WikiSource
1443:Wiktionary
1362:Indictment
1309:Indictment
1297:Grand jury
1240:Law portal
1221:Terry stop
515:References
447:instructed
365:, such as
363:reasonable
249:Anglophone
110:March 2009
80:newspapers
16:Legal term
1453:Wikiquote
1448:Wikibooks
1161:Detention
699:R v Majid
206:impartial
174:acquittal
1521:case law
1516:criminal
1468:Wikinews
1420:Evidence
896:14 April
870:(2003).
849:14 April
551:Copeland
543:(2006).
476:See also
375:haunting
281:UKHL 1:
1216:Suspect
1140:Arguido
1034:1122751
879:Crim LR
633:24 June
576:30 June
529:(ssrn).
367:serious
194:element
94:scholar
2024:(2019)
2016:(1959)
2008:(1957)
2000:(1956)
1992:(1945)
1984:(1943)
1976:(1942)
1968:(1942)
1960:(1935)
1927:(2008)
1919:(2003)
1911:(1996)
1903:(1993)
1895:(1992)
1887:(1992)
1879:(1975)
1871:(1966)
1863:(1960)
1855:(1956)
1822:(2012)
1814:(2009)
1806:(2006)
1798:(2004)
1790:(2004)
1782:(2002)
1774:(1999)
1766:(1995)
1758:(1995)
1750:(1988)
1742:(1985)
1734:(1984)
1726:(1976)
1718:(1972)
1712:(1972)
1704:(1963)
1668:(1995)
1660:(1994)
1652:(1993)
1644:(1990)
1636:(1986)
1628:(1979)
1620:(1979)
1612:(1979)
1604:(1978)
1596:(1977)
1588:(1975)
1580:(1972)
1572:(1970)
1564:(1969)
1556:(1954)
1548:(1952)
1146:Arrest
1078:
1032:
832:
802:,
786:,
768:,
743:,
658:
627:YouGov
299:Canada
229:YouGov
133:Beyond
96:
89:
82:
75:
67:
2093:Doubt
1687:Brady
1053:
1030:JSTOR
969:
950:
919:
890:(PDF)
875:(PDF)
843:(PDF)
826:(PDF)
458:Japan
419:Young
373:, or
101:JSTOR
87:books
1384:Plea
1264:Bail
1076:ISBN
1055:U.S.
971:U.S.
952:U.S.
921:U.S.
898:2012
851:2012
830:ISBN
656:ISBN
635:2023
578:2021
165:life
73:news
23:and
1287:law
1051:511
1022:doi
974:304
967:103
955:358
948:397
924:432
917:156
883:665
565:doi
549:v.
411:In
369:,
56:by
2044::
1049:,
1028:.
1018:90
1016:.
981:^
931:^
915:,
881:.
877:.
859:^
809:^
750:^
685:,
670:^
624:.
586:^
559:.
555:.
139:)
1507:e
1500:t
1493:v
1114:e
1107:t
1100:v
1084:.
1058:1
1036:.
1024::
900:.
853:.
728:.
664:.
637:.
580:.
567::
561:5
384:.
325:.
137:a
135:(
123:)
117:(
112:)
108:(
98:·
91:·
84:·
77:·
50:.
27:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
