Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: The Burden of Proof in a Collin County criminal case
By Collin County Criminal Lawyer Troy P. Burleson
If you are charged with a criminal offense in Texas, the prosecutor must produce enough evidence to satisfy the burden of proof required under Texas law and the United States Constitution for all of the elements of the crime which you are charged. If the prosecution does not satisfy the burden of proof for all of the elements of the crime for which you are charges then, by law, a judge or jury cannot find you guilty. The burden of proof is the most discussed aspect of criminal law in most jury trials. A jury trial starts with the voir dire. The voir dire process is when the state and the defense have an opportunity to talk to prospective jurors about legal concepts, including the burden of proof, to determine which potential jurors qualify for service and which ones should be challenged for cause.
Explaining the burden of proof for a criminal prosecution is often the most difficult part of a jury trial. Essentially, there are 5 levels of proof in our justice system. The five levels are:
1) Reasonable suspicion;
2) Probable Cause;
3) Preponderance of the Evidence;
4) Clear and Convincing Evidence; AND
5) Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
One must understand the difference between these five distinct legal concepts in order to fairly and responsibly serve as a juror in a criminal case. Unfortunately, too many prospective jurors believe either; 1) if an officer makes an arrest a person must be guilty OR 2) after the hear a criminal case they will be required to decide whether a person is guilty or innocent of the crime which they are charged. BOTH of these notions are false. However, let’s first begin with an explanation of the five burdens of proof.
1) Reasonable Suspicion
An officer must have reasonable suspicion to stop a citizen and question him or her about potential criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is defined as:
An objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time—Webster’s Dictionary of Law
A reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch; it is clear articulable facts that justify the stop of a citizen. For Example, in a stop for drunk driving, reasonable suspicion to stop a driver suspected of drunk driving can be any traffic offense. Therefore, if an officer witnesses a person speeding, failing to use a turn signal, or changing lanes without signaling, etc. then the officer has reasonable suspicion to stop a citizen and investigate.
Probable cause is the burden of proof needed for an officer to make an arrest of a citizen. Probable cause is more that a reasonable suspicion and is defined as:
--Black's Law Dictionary
Reasonable ground for a belief, as, in a criminal case, that the accused was guilty of the crime, or, in a civil case, that grounds for the action existed
As an example, again with a drunk driving stop, probable cause for an arrest for drunk driving can be; an admission of drinking, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, failure of sobriety tests, etc. Any of the following facts, as well as others not mentioned, could support probable cause for an arrest.
After an officer forms a reasonable suspicion for a stop and probable cause for an arrest, then the state must satisfy the burden of proof necessary for a criminal prosecution. It is important to distinguish the three burdens of proof in court proceedings to understand how much evidence the state must produce to convict a person of a criminal charge. There are three burdens of proof in court proceedings. The first is “preponderance of the evidence,” and it is used in civil court proceedings. The second is “clear and convincing evidence” and it is typically used in parental termination proceedings. Finally, the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3) Preponderance of the Evidence
Preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof used in a civil proceeding. A civil proceeding is one in which the parties are fighting for money (i.e., think “Judge Judy” stuff). Preponderance of the evidence means that the “the fact to be proven is more probable than not” to have happened. Essentially, one side puts on their evidence then the other side rebuts and puts on contrary evidence. Like a scale of justice, the jury then weights the evidence presented and which ever side produces more evidence to support their side wins. All the winning party has to do is prove it is more likely than not that what they claimed happened, happened!
This is an extremely low burden of proof and for good reason. Remember, in a civil suit. We are only fighting about money, not someone’s freedom or liberty.
4) Clear and Convincing Evidence
Clear and convincing evidence in the next level of proof and is used typically in parental termination proceedings. Clear and convincing evidence means, “A firm belief or conviction” that an event has occurred. Before the state can terminate the parental rights of a citizen, the state must prove, and the jury must have, a firm belief and conviction that the citizen is an unfit parent. Ask yourself, “How much proof would you require before the state could terminate your parental rights?” I bet most of you say,”100 percent plus proof.” Clear and convincing evidence is an extremely high burden of proof because the stakes are higher; we are terminating a person’s right to their children. However, it is not the highest burden of proof. That belongs to the burden in a criminal proceeding, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The highest burden of proof in any court proceeding is “Beyond a reasonable Doubt.” Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding. There is NO DEFINITION for “beyond a reasonable doubt.” At one time the term was defined by statutory law. However, the definition was long and cumbersome and the courts eventually decided that defining “beyond a reasonable doubt” caused more confusion then clarity.
Although it is not defined, beyond a reasonable doubt is MORE THAN 1) a preponderance of the evidence AND 2) clear and convincing evidence. Before a person can, by law, be convicted of a criminal offense, the evidence produced by the state must do MORE THAN prove a) it is more likely that not that the person committed the offense and 2) more that show a firm belief or conviction that the person committed the criminal offense.
Final Word on Burden of Proof
The burden of proof is the most difficult legal concept to explain to a jury. If it is not explained properly, or if the jury refuses to follow the law, then the person accused regardless of the facts of the case has very little chance of a fair trial. Most prospective jurors erroneously believe that that must find a person guilty or innocent of the crime charged. That is not what the law states. Remember, the State of Texas has the resources to give anyone accused of a crime the appearance of guilt. That is why we have the burden of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Remember, BY LAW a jury MUST FIND A PERSON NOT GUILTY is the State’s evidence ONLY convinces the jury that a person: 1) is more likely that not guilty of a crime; OR 2) the jury ONLY has a firm belief and conviction that the person is guilty. A person CAN ONLY BE CONVICTED of a CRIMINAL OFFENSE if the State proves the person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you have been charged with a criminal offense in Collin County, Texas, call attorney Biederman at the Law Offices of Biederman & Burleson, P.L.L.C. for a free consultation.
Biederman & Burleson, P.L.L.C.
2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300
Frisco, TX 75034
Toll Free: (866) 439-2182
Toll Free Fax: (800) 933-0891
The Frisco, Texas, criminal defense law firm of Biederman & Burleson, P.L.L.C., represents people who have been accused of criminal offenses in Texas, including in communities such as Plano, Allen, McKinney, Frisco, Dallas, Richardson, The Colony, Wylie, Denton, Prosper, Addison, Celina, Garland, Fort Worth, as well as Collin County, Dallas County, Denton County, and Tarrant County
