Presumption of Innocence & Reasonable Doubt

The government does not get to secure convictions without material and substantial evidence. In order to convict a person of a crime, the government is required to prove each element of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Notably, if the government fails to prove any singular element beyond a reasonable doubt, a person must be found not guilty of that offense. 

A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of reasonable doubt, whether his or her guilt is satisfactorily shown, he or she is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. This presumption places upon the People the burden of proving him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.

Brownstein Law Group vigorously defends its clients, in part, by demanding the government do its job of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt. 


Recent Posts

 -

Most people charged with DUI don't realize that they will be facing "charges" from both the County District Attorney and ...
Learn More