how to explain reasonable doubt to a jury

A defendant may sit mute at a criminal trial, because the state has the burden of proof to show that the defendant satisfied each element of the statutory definition of a crime by his or her action/participation or failure to act.

The defendant, carrying a presumption of innocence, has no burden of proof, and need prove nothing. In a criminal trial, the state must prove that the defendant is guilty, and the burden of proof is always with the state for the case in chief. Whereas, in a civil trial, a party may prevail with as little as 51 percent probability (a preponderance), those legal authorities who venture to assign a numerical value to “beyond a reasonable doubt” place it in the certainty range of 98 or 99 percent. There is essentially no room for wavering or uncertainty the trier of fact believes the evidence to be precise, indubitable, and leaves one with an inescapable conclusion of certainty. Ostensibly, this burden requires that a trier of fact (judge, jury, arbiter) is fully satisfied and entirely convinced to a moral certainty that the evidence presented proves the guilt of the defendant. Precisely, if there is any reasonable uncertainty of guilt, based on the evidence presented, a defendant cannot be convicted.

This standard of proof is used exclusively in criminal cases, and a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless a judge or jury is convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

How to explain reasonable doubt to a jury