Most people might say of the car/flatbed question: It is not reasonable to doubt it. Me: I have no reason to speak of reasonableness. If you instruct me to opine on whether I have a reasonable doubt, I will ask: "what do you mean by reasonable?" You seem to me close to saying (though I don't think it is your intent) that what is reasonable is what most people would say is reasonable. That position (which I don't think is yours) would have repugnant consequences in a jury room if I were a juror.
Very simple. It is what it says it is. A DOUBT (or lack of certainty) about any of the circumstances (FACTS) presented by the Prosecution that necessarily supports the INFERENCE that establishes the Defendant's guilt. It causes the Juror to have no abiding conviction about the Defendant's guilt. The Juror is in the state of mental vacillation. This doubt in turn is caused by the FACT (conclusion or interpretation) which was derived after careful evaluation of the evidence or absence of evidence to support guilt or conflict in the evidence through the use of any method of reasoning (e.g. Abductive reasoning, deduction, process of elimination or just plain common sense). It is an ACTUAL DOUBT and not imaginary or made up since it must be based solely on the evidence (information) or absence of evidence or conflict in the evidence admitted by the court which have undergone the DUE PROCESS OF LAW (direct and cross examination of the witnesses who provided the evidence). It is REASONABLE since the Juror in the evaluation of the evidence uses known and well-accepted method of logical reasoning to determine the interpretation of the evidence ( in legal terminology it is called the FACT) . The burden of the Prosecution is to prove the Defendant's guilt beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt. They can do this by means of any of the following: 1. Show that the DOUBT is not based on the evidence presented in the court , or; 2. Prove that there is no logical link between the FACT and the evidence. In other words, show that the FACT is a "non-sequitur" (it does not follow or; 3. The FACT is irrelevant or without any bearing to any fact presented by the Prosecution that supports their inference that establishes the defendant's guilt. In other words, it does not cast doubt about any fact presented by the Prosecution. The Prosecution is required to demolish, discredit, defeat, overcome or exclude all reasonable doubt in all the fact that necessarily supports the INFERENCE that establishes the guilt of the defendant. Failing to do so in one fact alone means the Defendant is entitled to an acquittal. Thus, they have to overcome 100% of the reasonable doubts. It is 100% or nothing. Why is this so. It is so only when the Prosecution's case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence (no one has witnessed the murder). Hope this helps in explaining this legal concept.
Wait, "Show that the DOUBT is not based on the evidence presented in the court". Beyond reasonable doubt should not based on the evidences presented in the court? so where should we base to? to our personal speculations or insights that made up our doubts? please elucidate clearly for me
Watch this 5 minute video if you want to learn the recipe to create a doubt in the jury's mind during a criminal trial: ruclips.net/video/_RhBkD-yCQE/видео.html
No offense but this is a horrible way to explain it. First example yes if there no evidences then there no reasonable doubt, but if a police officer was there telling you that someone took your car that still not reasonable doubt that is "reasonable suspicion" or "scintilla" we'll add the truck with flat bed next to it in the picture then that becomes "probable cause" or "preponderance" then lets say we had some eye witness then it can become "clear and convincing" still not reasonable doubt, but lets say we have video cameras videoing or the truck driver admits to taking the car then we have beyond reasonable doubt and a guilty verdict can be enter. Just a eye witness alone is not enough to have a Beyond reasonable doubt. Even if you have reasonable doubt you still have to say not guilty only when its "BEYOND reasonable doubt" they are guilty. A lot people misunderstand what it means and because of this Judges and Juries find people guilty without a TRUE beyond reasonable doubt verdict. Very considering a Judge is giving a poor example and doesn't truly understand what beyond reasonable doubt is..
The single best explanation I’ve watched.
This helped with my student's understanding of, "Twelve Angry Men." Thanks!
Reasonable doubt is therefore contingent upon how the jury views and examines the facts and arguments as they see them.
Thank you, Judge Alex. You have certainly removed all doubt for me. lol
Most people might say of the car/flatbed question: It is not reasonable to doubt it.
Me: I have no reason to speak of reasonableness. If you instruct me to opine on whether I have a reasonable doubt, I will ask: "what do you mean by reasonable?"
You seem to me close to saying (though I don't think it is your intent) that what is reasonable is what most people would say is reasonable.
That position (which I don't think is yours) would have repugnant consequences in a jury room if I were a juror.
Very simple. It is what it says it is. A DOUBT (or lack of certainty) about any of the circumstances (FACTS) presented by the Prosecution that necessarily supports the INFERENCE that establishes the Defendant's guilt. It causes the Juror to have no abiding conviction about the Defendant's guilt. The Juror is in the state of mental vacillation.
This doubt in turn is caused by the FACT (conclusion or interpretation) which was derived after careful evaluation of the evidence or absence of evidence to support guilt or conflict in the evidence through the use of any method of reasoning (e.g. Abductive reasoning, deduction, process of elimination or just plain common sense).
It is an ACTUAL DOUBT and not imaginary or made up since it must be based solely on the evidence (information) or absence of evidence or conflict in the evidence admitted by the court which have undergone the DUE PROCESS OF LAW (direct and cross examination of the witnesses who provided the evidence).
It is REASONABLE since the Juror in the evaluation of the evidence uses known and well-accepted method of logical reasoning to determine the interpretation of the evidence ( in legal terminology it is called the FACT) .
The burden of the Prosecution is to prove the Defendant's guilt beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt. They can do this by means of any of the following:
1. Show that the DOUBT is not based on the evidence presented in the court , or;
2. Prove that there is no logical link between the FACT and the evidence. In other words, show that the FACT is a "non-sequitur" (it
does not follow or;
3. The FACT is irrelevant or without any bearing to any fact presented by the Prosecution that supports their inference that
establishes the defendant's guilt. In other words, it does not cast doubt about any fact presented by the Prosecution.
The Prosecution is required to demolish, discredit, defeat, overcome or exclude all reasonable doubt in all the fact that necessarily supports the INFERENCE that establishes the guilt of the defendant. Failing to do so in one fact alone means the Defendant is entitled to an acquittal. Thus, they have to overcome 100% of the reasonable doubts. It is 100% or nothing. Why is this so. It is so only when the Prosecution's case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence (no one has witnessed the murder).
Hope this helps in explaining this legal concept.
Wait, "Show that the DOUBT is not based on the evidence presented in the court". Beyond reasonable doubt should not based on the evidences presented in the court? so where should we base to? to our personal speculations or insights that made up our doubts? please elucidate clearly for me
awesome! Do you have a youtube channel?
"uses known and well-accepted method of logical reasoning"
What is reasonable doubt is historically conditioned then.
Thank you Judge Alex. It helped me understand this concept.
🤯 thank you Judge Alex!
Thank you judge, very good explanation!
Only 1.2 million in prison. Possibly fewer than 50,000 serving life without parole or death
Some serving virtually life
Flaw of this system is when something unlikely happens you are screwed lol and people who lack common sense.
That's my guy right thurr I miss his Court TV show
*Reasonable Doubt:* An event _likely_ happened based off the evidence.
Absolutely wrong. That would be probable cause.
How likely?
@@b617_3 A a definition of probable cause I would also: how likely?
Watch this 5 minute video if you want to learn the recipe to create a doubt in the jury's mind during a criminal trial: ruclips.net/video/_RhBkD-yCQE/видео.html
A sleight of doubt is not beyond a reason doubt so you have to acquit
whats up with that TV behind him?
Some people hang flat-screens on their walls.
At lease you KNOW COPS LIE !!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🎥🎥🎥🎥📽📽📽📸📸📸📸📸📸📸📸📹📹📹📹📹📹ALWAYS RECORD POLICE !!!
No i didn't park there
Interesting
No offense but this is a horrible way to explain it. First example yes if there no evidences then there no reasonable doubt, but if a police officer was there telling you that someone took your car that still not reasonable doubt that is "reasonable suspicion" or "scintilla" we'll add the truck with flat bed next to it in the picture then that becomes "probable cause" or "preponderance" then lets say we had some eye witness then it can become "clear and convincing" still not reasonable doubt, but lets say we have video cameras videoing or the truck driver admits to taking the car then we have beyond reasonable doubt and a guilty verdict can be enter. Just a eye witness alone is not enough to have a Beyond reasonable doubt. Even if you have reasonable doubt you still have to say not guilty only when its "BEYOND reasonable doubt" they are guilty. A lot people misunderstand what it means and because of this Judges and Juries find people guilty without a TRUE beyond reasonable doubt verdict. Very considering a Judge is giving a poor example and doesn't truly understand what beyond reasonable doubt is..
🎉
No it doesnt clarify anything. Its a bunch of bullshit that nobody understands or can explain
I have reasonable doubt that you're not a judge. Because I've seen you on TV or a sports commentator.