465:(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.
302:
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.
276:
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.
453:: "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."
1245:
47:
418:
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
414:
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
182:
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
242:
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%,
405:
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
324:
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
301:
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
275:
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,
460:
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
279:
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
234:. 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%
296:
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
448:
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
284:
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".
799:, 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.").
415:
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.
183:
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
537:
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
1123:
219:
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
618:
1061:
977:
958:
927:
831:
479:, 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
306:
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.
1516:
391:
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
1116:
366:
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.
1526:
179:
207:
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
348:
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.
258:, expressed a similar idea by requiring "proofs clearer than light" for criminal conviction. The formulation "beyond reasonable doubt" is characteristic of
1109:
31:
2083:
238:"); legal scholars from a variety of analytical perspectives have argued in favor of quantification of the criminal standard of proof. In a 2019
1509:
351:
More is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty. A jury that concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.
1377:
215:
guilty. For any reasonable doubt to exist, it must come from insufficient evidence, or conflicts within the evidence, that would leave an
419:
cent, 95 per cent, 75 per cent and even 50 per cent. Occasionally this produced profound misunderstandings about the standard of proof."
2068:
332:
The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with that principle fundamental to all criminal trials, the
445:
850:
632:
1435:
1090:
882:
844:
670:
130:
64:
35:
605:
1458:
314:
In Canada, the expression "beyond a reasonable doubt" requires clarification for the benefit of the jury. The leading decision is
2098:
1502:
1404:
111:
83:
68:
1619:
328:
The Supreme Court suggested that the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be explained to juries as follows:
1991:
551:
90:
2078:
1813:
342:
A reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice and, instead, is based on reason and common sense.
1862:
432:
of the Court of Appeal set out a model jury direction on the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction.
97:
57:
2058:
483:). However, this is not considered an essential standard in Japan and lower level judges sometimes disregard it.
2093:
2007:
1955:
1336:
333:
200:
163:
1563:
187:. This standard of proof is widely accepted in many criminal justice systems, and its origin can be traced to
1741:
1473:
79:
1850:
1749:
1719:
922:
780:
1659:
1587:
2088:
1902:
1870:
1733:
1571:
1478:
1346:
1141:
755:
441:
204:
167:
1781:
1773:
1635:
355:
The Court also warned trial judges that they should avoid explaining the concept in the following ways:
2073:
1926:
1789:
1757:
1667:
1611:
1603:
1284:
1065:
981:
962:
931:
878:
518:
429:
155:
1975:
1967:
1651:
1643:
188:
2015:
1878:
1453:
564:, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): quantification of the 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' standard"
1805:
1627:
1324:
1289:
1201:
1176:
513:
224:
1999:
1983:
2063:
1341:
1023:
883:"Summing-up to juries in criminal cases – what jury research says about current rules and practice"
737:"The verdict and sentencing - Rape and Serious Sexual Assault | the Crown Prosecution Service"
480:
231:
339:
The burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused.
2031:
1934:
1918:
1797:
1595:
1529:
1269:
1261:
1211:
1181:
1171:
1132:
1040:
251:
175:
159:
473:
Since 1945, Japan has also operated by a "reasonable doubt" standard, including the doctrine of
814:
798:
2023:
1894:
1886:
1711:
1494:
1468:
1420:
1294:
1279:
1216:
1086:
840:
736:
666:
493:
457:
444:
is that the accused is presumed innocent until guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The
325:
should be included in a jury charge, as well as pointing out comments that should be avoided.
321:
104:
1910:
1765:
1696:
1555:
1206:
1032:
575:
475:
1389:
1383:
1191:
1186:
839:. Preliminary Paper 37. Vol. 2. Wellington, New Zealand: Law Commission. p. 54.
709:
503:
212:
1083:
Rule of Law in Japan : A Comparative Analysis - What You See May Not Be What You Get
897:
17:
2103:
1675:
1430:
1330:
1221:
1196:
1166:
1161:
984:
965:
934:
508:
220:
555:
2052:
1829:
1579:
1313:
1101:
1068:
954:
774:
498:
316:
208:
1008:
170:
because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be
1821:
1425:
1399:
424:
281:
216:
171:
722:
363:
as an ordinary expression that has no special meaning in the criminal law context.
660:
1440:
1367:
1362:
1302:
1244:
792:
401:
255:
235:
46:
345:
Reasonable doubt is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence.
191:, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
1483:
1372:
1319:
1307:
1250:
1240:
1231:
369:
By equating proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" to proof "to a moral certainty".
259:
230:
The definitions of the term "reasonable doubt" can be criticised for having a
184:
203:, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant's guilt on every
1463:
665:. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 28, 42, 61, 63, 67.
580:
1021:
Diamond, H. A. (1990). "Reasonable doubt: to define, or not to define".
1226:
1150:
1044:
1156:
637:
239:
1036:
691:
539:
461:
have prohibited providing juries with a definition altogether. In
662:
The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal
1394:
1274:
30:"Beyond a reasonable doubt" redirects here. For other uses, see
1953:
1848:
1694:
1541:
1498:
1105:
830:
Young, Warren; Cameron, Neil; Tinsley, Yvette (November 1999).
40:
320:, where the Supreme Court discussed the proper elements of a
166:(US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in
288:
The principle of "beyond reasonable doubt" was expounded in
372:
By qualifying the word "doubt" with adjectives other than
619:
Legal v. Quantified Definitions of the Standard of Proof
243:
and 10% said it should be at least 90% or 95% accurate.
227:, since reasonable doubt entitles them to an acquittal.
162:. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of
686:
684:
682:
406:
likely guilt, is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
399:
The Supreme Court of Canada has since emphasized in
1413:
1355:
1260:
1140:
158:required to validate a criminal conviction in most
71:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
604:Pi, Daniel, Francesco Parisi, and Barbara Luppi,
1510:
1117:
825:
823:
821:
700:, George Mason University, February 25, 2008.
8:
873:
871:
617:Kagehiro, Dorothy K. and W. Clark Staunton,
262:legal systems since the eighteenth century.
1950:
1845:
1691:
1538:
1517:
1503:
1495:
1124:
1110:
1102:
949:
947:
945:
943:
768:
766:
764:
762:
211:(the judge or jury) that the defendant is
32:Beyond a reasonable doubt (disambiguation)
1085:. Kluwer Law International. p. 253.
693:What Are the Origins of Reasonable Doubt?
579:
131:Learn how and when to remove this message
633:"How large can a 'reasonable doubt' be?"
1003:
1001:
999:
997:
995:
993:
530:
1011:(2005), Faculty Scholarship Series. 1.
7:
1620:County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
600:
598:
69:adding citations to reliable sources
833:Juries in Criminal Trials: Part Two
1992:New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson
25:
1436:Evidence law in the United States
1009:The Origins of "Reasonable Doubt"
631:Smith, Matthew (3 October 2019).
254:, followed by the English jurist
36:Reasonable doubt (disambiguation)
1243:
712:EWCA Crim 2563 (12 October 2009)
608:72 Rutgers U. L. Rev. 455 (2020)
223:to the evidence—and to consider
45:
442:American criminal jurisprudence
280:conviction was upheld; but the
56:needs additional citations for
2084:Legal doctrines and principles
1290:Deferred prosecution agreement
1:
388:, which may mislead the jury.
225:evidence favoring the accused
606:Quantifying Reasonable Doubt
1814:Youngblood v. West Virginia
621:9 L. Hum. Behav. 159 (1985)
178:, as well as suffering the
2120:
2069:American legal terminology
29:
2008:Mesarosh v. United States
1962:
1949:
1857:
1844:
1706:
1690:
1550:
1537:
1449:
1405:Presentence investigation
1238:
568:Law, Probability and Risk
393:beyond a reasonable doubt
160:adversarial legal systems
18:Beyond a reasonable doubt
1956:Prosecutorial misconduct
1564:Holland v. United States
1081:Goodman, Carl F (2003).
659:Franklin, James (2001).
334:presumption of innocence
164:balance of probabilities
2099:Probabilistic arguments
1863:Bishop v. United States
1750:United States v. Bagley
1742:California v. Trombetta
1720:Giglio v. United States
923:Coffin v. United States
359:By describing the term
201:presumed to be innocent
199:Because a defendant is
180:collateral consequences
1871:Dusky v. United States
1734:United States v. Agurs
1572:Leary v. United States
1347:Statute of limitations
1142:Criminal investigation
451:Miles v. United States
304:
174:or, in extreme cases,
1927:Sell v. United States
1790:United States v. Ruiz
1758:Arizona v. Youngblood
1660:Sullivan v. Louisiana
1604:Patterson v. New York
1588:Cool v. United States
1285:Criminal jurisdiction
896:: 674. Archived from
519:Burden of proof (law)
294:
1903:Medina v. California
1628:Sandstrom v. Montana
1325:Inquisitorial system
1262:Criminal prosecution
1202:Reasonable suspicion
1177:Exigent circumstance
815: (SCC 2009).
781: (SCC 1997).
756: (SCC 1995).
725:UKHL 1 (23 May 1935)
698:History News Network
514:Reasonable suspicion
221:not logically linked
65:improve this article
1782:Strickler v. Greene
1774:Wood v. Bartholomew
1636:Jackson v. Virginia
1342:Preliminary hearing
1024:Columbia Law Review
1007:Whitman, James Q.,
440:The cornerstone to
232:circular definition
172:deprived of liberty
2079:Criminal procedure
2032:McDonough v. Smith
1935:Indiana v. Edwards
1919:Cooper v. Oklahoma
1798:Illinois v. Fisher
1668:Victor v. Nebraska
1612:Taylor v. Kentucky
1596:Mullaney v. Wilbur
1270:Adversarial system
1212:Search and seizure
1182:Knock-and-announce
1133:Criminal procedure
1058:Victor v. Nebraska
903:on 3 November 2012
856:on 9 February 2013
581:10.1093/lpr/mgl017
463:Victor v. Nebraska
322:charge to the jury
252:Medieval Roman law
189:Blackstone's ratio
80:"Reasonable doubt"
2046:
2045:
2042:
2041:
2024:Napue v. Illinois
1976:Hysler v. Florida
1968:Mooney v. Holohan
1945:
1944:
1895:Riggins v. Nevada
1887:Drope v. Missouri
1851:Mental competence
1840:
1839:
1727:Moore v. Illinois
1712:Brady v. Maryland
1686:
1685:
1652:Cage v. Louisiana
1644:Murray v. Carrier
1492:
1491:
1474:Wikimedia Commons
1421:Criminal defenses
1356:Charges and pleas
1280:Bill of attainder
1217:Search of persons
723:Woolmington v DPP
690:James Q. Whitman
494:Critical thinking
290:Woolmington v DPP
271:England and Wales
156:standard of proof
141:
140:
133:
115:
16:(Redirected from
2111:
2059:Sociology of law
2016:Alcorta v. Texas
1951:
1911:Godinez v. Moran
1879:Pate v. Robinson
1846:
1766:Kyles v. Whitley
1692:
1556:Leland v. Oregon
1544:Reasonable doubt
1539:
1519:
1512:
1505:
1496:
1253:
1248:
1247:
1207:Right to silence
1126:
1119:
1112:
1103:
1097:
1096:
1078:
1072:
1055:
1049:
1048:
1031:(6): 1716–1736.
1018:
1012:
1005:
988:
975:
969:
951:
938:
919:
913:
912:
910:
908:
902:
887:
875:
866:
865:
863:
861:
855:
849:. Archived from
838:
827:
816:
812:
806:
800:
796:
788:
782:
778:
770:
757:
753:
747:
741:
740:
733:
727:
719:
713:
707:
701:
688:
677:
676:
656:
650:
649:
647:
645:
628:
622:
615:
609:
602:
593:
592:
590:
588:
583:
548:
542:
535:
481:Shigemitsu DandĹŤ
476:in dubio pro reo
446:US Supreme Court
361:reasonable doubt
213:almost certainly
152:reasonable doubt
136:
129:
125:
122:
116:
114:
73:
49:
41:
21:
2119:
2118:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2094:Legal reasoning
2049:
2048:
2047:
2038:
1958:
1941:
1853:
1836:
1806:Banks v. Dretke
1702:
1682:
1546:
1533:
1523:
1493:
1488:
1445:
1409:
1390:Peremptory plea
1384:Nolo contendere
1351:
1256:
1249:
1242:
1236:
1192:Pretextual stop
1187:Miranda warning
1136:
1135:(investigation)
1130:
1100:
1093:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1056:
1052:
1037:10.2307/1122751
1020:
1019:
1015:
1006:
991:
976:
972:
952:
941:
920:
916:
906:
904:
900:
885:
877:
876:
869:
859:
857:
853:
847:
836:
829:
828:
819:
808:
807:
803:
790:
789:
785:
772:
771:
760:
749:
748:
744:
735:
734:
730:
720:
716:
708:
704:
689:
680:
673:
658:
657:
653:
643:
641:
630:
629:
625:
616:
612:
603:
596:
586:
584:
552:Franklin, James
550:
549:
545:
536:
532:
528:
523:
504:Moral certainty
489:
471:
456:Juries must be
438:
412:
312:
273:
268:
249:
247:By jurisdiction
197:
137:
126:
120:
117:
74:
72:
62:
50:
39:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2117:
2115:
2107:
2106:
2101:
2096:
2091:
2086:
2081:
2076:
2071:
2066:
2061:
2051:
2050:
2044:
2043:
2040:
2039:
2037:
2036:
2028:
2020:
2012:
2004:
2000:White v. Ragen
1996:
1988:
1984:Pyle v. Kansas
1980:
1972:
1963:
1960:
1959:
1954:
1947:
1946:
1943:
1942:
1940:
1939:
1931:
1923:
1915:
1907:
1899:
1891:
1883:
1875:
1867:
1858:
1855:
1854:
1849:
1842:
1841:
1838:
1837:
1835:
1834:
1826:
1818:
1810:
1802:
1794:
1786:
1778:
1770:
1762:
1754:
1746:
1738:
1730:
1724:
1716:
1707:
1704:
1703:
1695:
1688:
1687:
1684:
1683:
1681:
1680:
1676:Schlup v. Delo
1672:
1664:
1656:
1648:
1640:
1632:
1624:
1616:
1608:
1600:
1592:
1584:
1576:
1568:
1560:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1542:
1535:
1534:
1525:United States
1524:
1522:
1521:
1514:
1507:
1499:
1490:
1489:
1487:
1486:
1481:
1476:
1471:
1466:
1461:
1456:
1450:
1447:
1446:
1444:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1428:
1423:
1417:
1415:
1411:
1410:
1408:
1407:
1402:
1397:
1392:
1387:
1380:
1375:
1370:
1365:
1359:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1350:
1349:
1344:
1339:
1334:
1331:Nolle prosequi
1327:
1322:
1317:
1310:
1305:
1300:
1292:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1272:
1266:
1264:
1258:
1257:
1255:
1254:
1239:
1237:
1235:
1234:
1229:
1224:
1222:Search warrant
1219:
1214:
1209:
1204:
1199:
1197:Probable cause
1194:
1189:
1184:
1179:
1174:
1169:
1167:Consent search
1164:
1162:Arrest warrant
1159:
1154:
1146:
1144:
1138:
1137:
1131:
1129:
1128:
1121:
1114:
1106:
1099:
1098:
1091:
1073:
1050:
1013:
989:
970:
939:
914:
879:Young, William
867:
845:
817:
801:
783:
758:
742:
728:
714:
702:
678:
671:
651:
623:
610:
594:
574:(2): 159–165.
556:"Case comment—
543:
529:
527:
524:
522:
521:
516:
511:
509:Probable cause
506:
501:
496:
490:
488:
485:
470:
467:
437:
434:
411:
408:
397:
396:
389:
370:
367:
364:
353:
352:
349:
346:
343:
340:
337:
311:
308:
272:
269:
267:
266:United Kingdom
264:
248:
245:
196:
193:
139:
138:
53:
51:
44:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2116:
2105:
2102:
2100:
2097:
2095:
2092:
2090:
2089:Law of Canada
2087:
2085:
2082:
2080:
2077:
2075:
2072:
2070:
2067:
2065:
2062:
2060:
2057:
2056:
2054:
2034:
2033:
2029:
2026:
2025:
2021:
2018:
2017:
2013:
2010:
2009:
2005:
2002:
2001:
1997:
1994:
1993:
1989:
1986:
1985:
1981:
1978:
1977:
1973:
1970:
1969:
1965:
1964:
1961:
1957:
1952:
1948:
1937:
1936:
1932:
1929:
1928:
1924:
1921:
1920:
1916:
1913:
1912:
1908:
1905:
1904:
1900:
1897:
1896:
1892:
1889:
1888:
1884:
1881:
1880:
1876:
1873:
1872:
1868:
1865:
1864:
1860:
1859:
1856:
1852:
1847:
1843:
1832:
1831:
1830:Smith v. Cain
1827:
1824:
1823:
1819:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1808:
1807:
1803:
1800:
1799:
1795:
1792:
1791:
1787:
1784:
1783:
1779:
1776:
1775:
1771:
1768:
1767:
1763:
1760:
1759:
1755:
1752:
1751:
1747:
1744:
1743:
1739:
1736:
1735:
1731:
1728:
1725:
1722:
1721:
1717:
1714:
1713:
1709:
1708:
1705:
1701:
1699:
1693:
1689:
1678:
1677:
1673:
1670:
1669:
1665:
1662:
1661:
1657:
1654:
1653:
1649:
1646:
1645:
1641:
1638:
1637:
1633:
1630:
1629:
1625:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1614:
1613:
1609:
1606:
1605:
1601:
1598:
1597:
1593:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1582:
1581:
1580:In re Winship
1577:
1574:
1573:
1569:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1553:
1552:
1549:
1545:
1540:
1536:
1531:
1528:
1520:
1515:
1513:
1508:
1506:
1501:
1500:
1497:
1485:
1482:
1480:
1477:
1475:
1472:
1470:
1467:
1465:
1462:
1460:
1457:
1455:
1452:
1451:
1448:
1442:
1439:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1429:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1419:
1418:
1416:
1414:Related areas
1412:
1406:
1403:
1401:
1398:
1396:
1393:
1391:
1388:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1371:
1369:
1366:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1358:
1354:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1340:
1338:
1335:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1315:
1314:Habeas corpus
1311:
1309:
1306:
1304:
1301:
1299:
1297:
1296:Ex post facto
1293:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1276:
1273:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1265:
1263:
1259:
1252:
1246:
1241:
1233:
1230:
1228:
1225:
1223:
1220:
1218:
1215:
1213:
1210:
1208:
1205:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1193:
1190:
1188:
1185:
1183:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1173:
1170:
1168:
1165:
1163:
1160:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1145:
1143:
1139:
1134:
1127:
1122:
1120:
1115:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1104:
1094:
1092:9789041189035
1088:
1084:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1051:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1004:
1002:
1000:
998:
996:
994:
990:
986:
983:
979:
974:
971:
967:
964:
960:
957:
956:
955:In re Winship
950:
948:
946:
944:
940:
936:
933:
929:
925:
924:
918:
915:
899:
895:
891:
884:
880:
874:
872:
868:
852:
848:
846:1-877187-42-9
842:
835:
834:
826:
824:
822:
818:
811:
805:
802:
795:
794:
787:
784:
777:
776:
775:R. v. Lifchus
769:
767:
765:
763:
759:
752:
746:
743:
738:
732:
729:
726:
724:
718:
715:
711:
706:
703:
699:
695:
694:
687:
685:
683:
679:
674:
672:0-8018-6569-7
668:
664:
663:
655:
652:
640:
639:
634:
627:
624:
620:
614:
611:
607:
601:
599:
595:
582:
577:
573:
569:
565:
563:
559:
558:United States
553:
547:
544:
541:
534:
531:
525:
520:
517:
515:
512:
510:
507:
505:
502:
500:
499:Metacognition
497:
495:
492:
491:
486:
484:
482:
478:
477:
468:
466:
464:
459:
454:
452:
447:
443:
436:United States
435:
433:
431:
427:
426:
420:
416:
409:
407:
404:
403:
394:
390:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
368:
365:
362:
358:
357:
356:
350:
347:
344:
341:
338:
335:
331:
330:
329:
326:
323:
319:
318:
317:R. v. Lifchus
309:
307:
303:
300:
299:Rex v. Davies
293:
291:
286:
283:
277:
270:
265:
263:
261:
257:
253:
246:
244:
241:
237:
233:
228:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
209:trier of fact
206:
202:
194:
192:
190:
186:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
135:
132:
124:
113:
110:
106:
103:
99:
96:
92:
89:
85:
82: –
81:
77:
76:Find sources:
70:
66:
60:
59:
54:This article
52:
48:
43:
42:
37:
33:
19:
2074:Criminal law
2030:
2022:
2014:
2006:
1998:
1990:
1982:
1974:
1966:
1933:
1925:
1917:
1909:
1901:
1893:
1885:
1877:
1869:
1861:
1828:
1822:Cone v. Bell
1820:
1812:
1804:
1796:
1788:
1780:
1772:
1764:
1756:
1748:
1740:
1732:
1726:
1718:
1710:
1697:
1674:
1666:
1658:
1650:
1642:
1634:
1626:
1618:
1610:
1602:
1594:
1586:
1578:
1570:
1562:
1554:
1543:
1426:Criminal law
1400:Plea bargain
1382:
1337:Precognition
1329:
1312:
1295:
1149:
1082:
1076:
1057:
1053:
1028:
1022:
1016:
973:
953:
921:
917:
905:. Retrieved
898:the original
893:
889:
858:. Retrieved
851:the original
832:
810:R. v. Layton
809:
804:
791:
786:
773:
751:R. v. Brydon
750:
745:
731:
721:
717:
705:
697:
692:
661:
654:
642:. Retrieved
636:
626:
613:
585:. Retrieved
571:
567:
561:
557:
546:
533:
474:
472:
462:
455:
450:
439:
428:, President
425:R v Wanhalla
423:
421:
417:
413:
400:
398:
392:
385:
381:
377:
373:
360:
354:
327:
315:
313:
305:
298:
295:
289:
287:
282:Appeal Court
278:
274:
250:
229:
198:
151:
147:
143:
142:
127:
118:
108:
101:
94:
87:
75:
63:Please help
58:verification
55:
1530:due process
1484:Wikiversity
1441:Legal abuse
1378:Information
1368:Arraignment
1363:Alford plea
1303:Extradition
1071: (1994)
987: (1880)
968: (1970)
937: (1895)
793:R. v. Starr
410:New Zealand
402:R. v. Starr
382:substantial
256:Edward Coke
236:probability
195:In practice
168:civil cases
154:is a legal
2064:Skepticism
2053:Categories
1700:disclosure
1469:WikiSource
1454:Wiktionary
1373:Indictment
1320:Indictment
1308:Grand jury
1251:Law portal
1232:Terry stop
526:References
458:instructed
376:, such as
374:reasonable
260:Anglophone
121:March 2009
91:newspapers
27:Legal term
1464:Wikiquote
1459:Wikibooks
1172:Detention
710:R v Majid
217:impartial
185:acquittal
1532:case law
1527:criminal
1479:Wikinews
1431:Evidence
907:14 April
881:(2003).
860:14 April
562:Copeland
554:(2006).
487:See also
386:haunting
292:UKHL 1:
1227:Suspect
1151:Arguido
1045:1122751
890:Crim LR
644:24 June
587:30 June
540:(ssrn).
378:serious
205:element
105:scholar
2035:(2019)
2027:(1959)
2019:(1957)
2011:(1956)
2003:(1945)
1995:(1943)
1987:(1942)
1979:(1942)
1971:(1935)
1938:(2008)
1930:(2003)
1922:(1996)
1914:(1993)
1906:(1992)
1898:(1992)
1890:(1975)
1882:(1966)
1874:(1960)
1866:(1956)
1833:(2012)
1825:(2009)
1817:(2006)
1809:(2004)
1801:(2004)
1793:(2002)
1785:(1999)
1777:(1995)
1769:(1995)
1761:(1988)
1753:(1985)
1745:(1984)
1737:(1976)
1729:(1972)
1723:(1972)
1715:(1963)
1679:(1995)
1671:(1994)
1663:(1993)
1655:(1990)
1647:(1986)
1639:(1979)
1631:(1979)
1623:(1979)
1615:(1978)
1607:(1977)
1599:(1975)
1591:(1972)
1583:(1970)
1575:(1969)
1567:(1954)
1559:(1952)
1157:Arrest
1089:
1043:
843:
813:,
797:,
779:,
754:,
669:
638:YouGov
310:Canada
240:YouGov
144:Beyond
107:
100:
93:
86:
78:
2104:Doubt
1698:Brady
1064:
1041:JSTOR
980:
961:
930:
901:(PDF)
886:(PDF)
854:(PDF)
837:(PDF)
469:Japan
430:Young
384:, or
112:JSTOR
98:books
1395:Plea
1275:Bail
1087:ISBN
1066:U.S.
982:U.S.
963:U.S.
932:U.S.
909:2012
862:2012
841:ISBN
667:ISBN
646:2023
589:2021
176:life
84:news
34:and
1298:law
1062:511
1033:doi
985:304
978:103
966:358
959:397
935:432
928:156
894:665
576:doi
560:v.
422:In
380:,
67:by
2055::
1060:,
1039:.
1029:90
1027:.
992:^
942:^
926:,
892:.
888:.
870:^
820:^
761:^
696:,
681:^
635:.
597:^
570:.
566:.
150:)
1518:e
1511:t
1504:v
1125:e
1118:t
1111:v
1095:.
1069:1
1047:.
1035::
911:.
864:.
739:.
675:.
648:.
591:.
578::
572:5
395:.
336:.
148:a
146:(
134:)
128:(
123:)
119:(
109:·
102:·
95:·
88:·
61:.
38:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
