I have a voir dire for a criminal mischief trial this afternoon, and wanted to pose this question to the board. I'm trying to think of ways to explain "beyond a reasonable doubt" versus "beyond all doubt" and was thinking of using this example:

Let's take two pretty well known conspiracy theories- that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't President Kennedy's assassin, and that the United States didn't land on the moon. For Oswald, a person might have *reasonable* doubts that he was the only shooter. Even the United States House Committee found that there might have been another gunshot. There's lots of evidence there that he was the one that did it, but maybe not enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, some people say that we didn't land on the moon. While there might be *some* doubt, it's not reasonable. Sure, I guess that it could have been faked in Hollywood, but the fact that we came back with moon rocks, and they've now taken photos of the equipment left behind on the moon sure doesn't make that a *reasonable* doubt.

So what do you guys think? Effective? Too technical? Overly complex? Offensive to President Kennedy? Offensive to those who think we staged the moon landing in Arizona? (Hell, as far as I know, my Mom's father still doesn't believe the moon landing was real.)

If you see much gray hair as you scan your panel, you might want to consider "plan B."
I am pretty sure that my grandmother would see little difference in your two examples.

I like talking about an incomplete jigsaw puzzle. "You get to a point that you know what the picture is even though some, if not many, of the pieces are missing and maybe even lost."

Try to get them to see that doubt is not knowing what the picture is and reasonable doubt is knowing what the picture is without having every single piece in place.

I think your examples are too complicated, always remember the KISS adage: Keep it Simple Stupid. The puzzle example is one that I like to use, and in fact use quite regularly.

In addition I like to cover that beyond a reasonable doubt is NOT beyond all doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt, not 100% Certainty. Then I like to remind them to use their common sense and they will know it, beyond a reasonable doubt, when the see it.

Also, I don't know about your defense attorney's but ours always invariably make a big deal about the clear and convincing standard in CPS cases. They'll say something like the State can take away your kids with a lower burden than your freedom - your kids!!! So always try to cover that first to cushion the blow and explain it on your terms.

Just my two cents worth, best of luck to you!

Thanks both- I've decided that it WAS too complicated (if you have to ask...) and will be going with the puzzle example.

quote:

---

Also, I don't know about your defense attorney's but ours always invariably make a big deal about the clear and convincing standard in CPS cases. They'll say something like the State can take away your kids with a lower burden than your freedom - your kids!!! So always try to cover that first to cushion the blow and explain it on your terms.

---

Our's do the same thing. What they enivitably fail to point out is the issue in the criminal trial is the defendant's freedom, while the issue in a CPS case is rescuing children from a dangerous environment(aka "taking your children away" when phrased by the defense). One is punitive by its very nature, the other is not.