iReport — What is beyond reasonable doubt?by Moe Habibi on Saturday, July 9, 2011 at 4:59pmReasonable  doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal  defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt  Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench  trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or  judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the  jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their  only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the  defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be  pronounced guilty.Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of  proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either  proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and  convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance  of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its  favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing  evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact  sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof  standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal  trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the  defendant's death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials  where money damages are the common remedy.Reasonable doubt is  required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the  Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S.  358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court  ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on "a fundamental  value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an  innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."The reasonable  doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The  p...