Beyond a Reasonable Doubt SIMPLIFIED + EXAMPLE

[@LawVenture]

CHALLENGE: Comment with another example that you may use!

[@MelkorTolkien]

2:15 But then the defense comes along and presents evidence to show that there has been a recall on Cheerios cause some of the boxes contain Fruity Pebbles in the box instead of Cheerios. Reasonable Doubt has been reestablished.

[@mercedeswilkins9085]

Yes

[@josesequerosvalle]

I didn't understand... We need a court example of what sends someone's to jail and what does not, I think.

[@malikhearon4688]

Example: Something we all do and that's going to the grocery store. You have your list and you walk around the store to pick all the items on your list that you have. You get to the check out counter to pay for everything you have. You then leave the store, walk out and go to your car, and then you put everything in your car. Then you get in your car and crank up. BUT right before you pull off you have a last minute thought; when you have that thought if you got everything off your list is reasonable doubt. If you have to go back and check through your bags to make sure you have everything is a reasonable doubt that you may have forgotten to get something off your list. What do you think about this example

[@LawVenture]

I like the concept, however, it's missing a key element -- the factual analysis. The question is really "why would you feel the need to go back and check your bags?" If you feel the need because you realized that you didn't cross some things off of your list, then that doubt is probably reasonable. But, if you feel the need after checking the bags 5 minutes earlier, then that doubt may not be reasonable.

[@whatwillyoudiefor7774]

Law Venture Thank you for the feed back I really appreciate it.

[@cliftt]

Spot on. All a jury need have is a reason for the doubt. The individual juror makes that determination. I'd argue the passenger's example. He repeatedly says doubtS (plural). One needn't have reasonable doubts, only reasonable doubt (singular).

[@cliftt]

@@LawVenture U have added to his hypo. The hypo is spot on as presented.

[@Lilac914]

I’m still confused 😿

[@ericwright5455]

This guy should also explain the difference between the legal definitions of words verses the real definition of words

[@pierresoorden5975]

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt seems pretty easy to prove, considering there are like 1.2 million people in prison

[@pierresoorden5975]

I have doubts there are Cheerios in that box

[@pierresoorden5975]

In the United States

[@Nefarious.Aquarius]

What if the Cherrios were expired prior to the day you purchased them? Who would be held responsible? The merchant or the customer?

[@Hospitalabusedpatient9726]

I'm in need of getting help with a case regarding this very subject 🙏 in Florida I have proof records and date stamped information but very much traumatized

[@lowkeyscustomcars]

Ive spent the the last 5 years an over 100k in court with my X as shes tired to get custody of our now 8 year old daughter, her new boyfriend has way more $ than me to , but after a little over 5 years an 4 shity lawyers your videos an me as my childs lawyer an by the way im not an attorney, im just not the pos drug addict an abusive parent , that constantly gets caught in lies an disobeys every state guideline an court order ! Your awsome man an ive watched an read so much over the years an honesty i feel like you have helped me more than 4 lawyers an over 100k spent ! How much do i owe you bro ? LoL cause your worth every dime !

[@LawVenture]

I’m humbled by the kind words! 🙌

[@marksmith6097]

Well I have returned goods to a hardware store in box with water inside the paint tins which were inside the box. Made it look smicko and they refunded and returned it to the shop. This blows his whole example of why a jury must convict out the water because he didn’t open the bag and see what’s inside the bag. Like they opened the box but not the paint cans I just set someone up for failure and know it so I need more than reasonable doubt which I can define much better. No possible other way with absolute certainty. This guy is a fool!

[@AhmedHussein.81]

I’m sorry I’m lost 😞that mean if someone pressing charge against you ?

[@decided9942]

Pls explain presumption of innocence seems interesting for me :

[@LawVenture]

Thanks for the idea. I'll see what I can do!

[@Momo-po5tn]

This was so perfect thank you!! 😊

[@LawVenture]

You're so welcome!

[@jclcrow2621]

Thanks for the great video explanation. Wouldn’t you agree, tho, most criminal cases have room for some reasonable doubt. Even eyewitnesses have been shown to be wrong. If that is true that means the majority of juries might “get it right” but their decisions are ignoring doubt and being swayed by what the French in their system call “the bouquet of evidence.” It seems given enough time and money, any defendant should be able to find reasonable doubt.

[@David-j7c6w]

I understand but there are still innocent people in prison !

[@christineduffy4234]

dose this apply in an civil case were an introdict has been taken out ?

[@LawVenture]

I’m not sure that I’m understanding the question. Can you rephrase it, please?

[@ZuckerbergsAi]

@@LawVenture I've heard that civil trials have a lower requirement of proof when a juror decides to convict someone of a crime. In contrast, for criminal trials the juror has to find that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. is this true?

[@tommymatthewgregory2213]

The standard in a civil trial is "preponderance of the evidence" which is a lower standard which means that you think it's more likely than not that accused is guilty. If you're on the fence like "maybe he's guilty, maybe he isn't" then you're 50/50 and that doesn't meet the threshold so you'd have to vote not guilty in that case. But if you're 55% sure he's guilty then you must vote guilty.

[@chanceweller3233]

beyond a reasonable doubt means that the prosecution has to be 110 percent sure that their case is air tight in order to be confident in obtaining a conviction. also all it takes it one juror to have some doubt about how strong the evidence is on the case as a whole.

[@jasont7814]

That’s not what beyond a reasonable doubt means.

[@DavidGS66]

Beyond a reasonable doubt implies we accept false convictions. It's the Western version of NKVD chief Yezhov saying about convicting the innocent: "When you chop wood, the chips fly".

[@tommymatthewgregory2213]

A man's wife is missing. Her car, phone, purse, and jewelry are still at the house. Man says he has no idea where she is and he works from home, so no alibi. She just disappeared. Eventually cops locate a grave and wife's body in the backyard. There's a fairly new shovel and pick in the shed and the dirt on them also seems sort of recent. Walmart security cameras show man buying what seems like those very tools the day wife went missing. To me, it's possible he didn't kill her, that he's just unlucky. But given the facts, it's not reasonable to believe that the man is innocent yet it's his bad luck that the facts make him look guilty. I would have no reasonable doubt that he's guilty.

[@jasont7814]

I would agree with you.

[@helpstopanimalabuse8153]

i don't understand at all, i am more confused than before. Is there another example you have. I have a PhD so i am not stupid.

[@tommymatthewgregory2213]

See what you think of my example

[@helpstopanimalabuse8153]

@@tommymatthewgregory2213 Thanks Tommy, makes much more sense now. is a case like yours considered circumstantial evidence ? Sorry, another term i can't qiet understand. I don't have any chance as a career as a lawyer.

[@skabq874]

great video man

[@LawVenture]

Appreciate it!

[@Rolo_Bambino]

Thanks

[@magnidroid]

Here's a very simple example: You go to court for stealing a vehicle. The prosecution's evidence is blurry and pixelated security camera footage, where you cannot be distinguished in the footage. Therefore, there is reasonable doubt that the footage shows you stealing the vehicle. Now let's say the evidence is crystal clear 4k security camera footage that clearly shows you stealing the vehicle. You argue that you aren't guilty of stealing the vehicle because your neighbor has a mind control device that he used to make you steal the vehicle. This technically creates a doubt that you stole the vehicle, but it isn't a reasonable doubt

[@JoshWashington]

I think it works as guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not innocent beyond reasonable doubt. In the Cheerio example, the default assumption is that it is a quality product. It is the onus of the prosecutor by using evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that it isn't. The defense does not have to show, using evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the Cheerio's are a quality product. I think the analogy used works the wrong way. To put it another way, "Innocent until proven guilty".

[@MeowfaceMusic]

"beyond" a "reasonable" "doubt" If each word could be swapped out with an alternative word, what could they be?

[@mercedeswilkins9085]

A slight of doubt is not beyond a reason doubt so you have to acquit

[@decided9942]

Thanks, i need this

[@LawVenture]

You're very welcome

[@JoanMcCants-cs9tq]

Explaining

[@exactzero]

If at the end of the state’s case, a juror is left with the impression of maybe they are guilty, and maybe they are not, that is reasonable doubt. They must be beyond reasonable doubt, in short, no doubts that the person is guilty.

[@josephrichards7624]

Yeah law really is sophistry.

[@larryg1902]

Your Cheerios example is wayyyyyy tooooo longgggggg

[@LawVenture]

Feel free to strip it down as needed. I'd rather provide too much detail in videos than not enough.

[@diethersalvador681]

Nakaka inis hindi ko mainitindihan, hindi ko tuloy maintindihan ung pinag sasabi ni Concita Carpio sa Interviw

[@trashtvinternational]

OJ simpson GUILTY!!!!!!! how on earth did the jury find him not guilty.... were they stupid or what !!!!!

[@David-j7c6w]

We all know he’s guilty but they couldn’t prove 100% he did it so that is why he was acquitted.

[@Y_I_DIY]

This was more confusing than helpful

[@Samiam173]

First and foremost, how do we know the subscribe is really subscribing to you...(hmmmmm); secondly, this is to much detail (for a non-lawyer).....thanks though.

[@leighfleming2938]

Dude, too long. I'm a lawyer and you don't want to spend that much time in your closing making a difficult concept more confusing

[@LawVenture]

😂 I think it's safe to say that you didn't make it to 6:16 when I started waiving my hands awkwardly to get your attention haha. If you watch that part, you'll see that this video is related to jury selection. In fact, I'd strongly advise not waiting until closing to bring up the burden. Also, in these TAA course lessons, I always provide too much info so that the viewer can tighten it up based on their needs. It's easier to trim than to create.

[@leighfleming2938]

@@LawVenture haha. I didn’t make it that far! But I went back and got your point! I’m glad you agree it was too long for real life 😉