What Is the Burden of Proof in a Criminal Case? - Federal Lawyer
Quick Practice Area Locator

What Is the Burden of Proof in a Criminal Case?

Attorney in the Court Room

The burden of proof in a criminal case has been recorded for your convenience:

In a criminal case, the burden of proof always rests with the government. This means that in order to convict someone of a crime, it is necessary that the government prove that the accused committed each and every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the government fails to prove just one element of the offense at trial, then a jury must find the defendant not guilty.

The government’s burden is high. This makes sense because of what is at stake for a defendant accused of a crime. It is important to note that it is never necessary for an accused to have to prove they are innocent or to ever say or do anything in their defense. Why is this the case? Simply put, it is because our Constitution says so.

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), the Supreme Court held that the right to not be convicted of a crime unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a constitutional requirement. And, in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the Supreme Court preserved the jury’s right to determine proof beyond a reasonable doubt on each and every element of an offense. Despite complaints that the stringent approach of Apprendi to each and every criminal case would be time-consuming and cost-prohibitive, the Supreme Court recognized that a defendant’s right to hold the government to the highest standard regarding satisfying its burden of proof was paramount.

What does beyond a reasonable doubt really mean? Sometimes, there is difficulty in interpreting reasonable doubt because of the subjective nature of the concept—one person’s reasonable doubt may be different from another person’s. The Supreme Court has not defined reasonable doubt and has left the term open to interpretation. In fact, states and even the Courts themselves utilize varying definitions of reasonable doubt in jury instructions. What is clear is that in every jurisdiction in the United States beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest legal standard of proof.

What happens when the government fails to carry its burden of proof? If the government fails to meet its burden of proof on any element, the defendant must be acquitted. An acquittal is a judgment that a person is not guilty of the alleged crime. An acquittal is a powerful verdict because under the rules of double jeopardy, an acquittal bars retrial of the same offense, even if new evidence does arise.

Another possibility at trial is a mixed verdict or a hung jury. A hung jury is a jury that is not unanimous. In federal criminal cases, twelve jurors determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. In order for the verdict to be final, the jury vote must be unanimous. If only one juror does not agree with the other eleven jurors the jury is said to be “hung” and the case cannot be resolved at that trial. After a hung jury the government must decide whether it wants to retry the defendant at a later date. Sometimes the government decides that the split in the jury pool (i.e. 9 jurors voting not guilty and 3 jurors voting guilty) is too great a problem for it to overcome at another trial and opts not to retry the case—this may effectively end the case against the defendant, although it does not bar the government from revisiting the matter as long as it is recharged within the statute of limitations for that specific offense.

At trial, a defendant may raise an affirmative defense although it is not necessary to do so. Affirmative defenses will normally center on facts other than those outlined and alleged by the prosecution. Sometimes, a well plead affirmative defense can defeat or mitigate the prosecution’s evidence and cast reasonable doubt into the jurors’ minds. Examples of such defenses include lack of intent, entrapment, insanity, self-defense, duress, compulsion, mistake, withdrawal in conspiracy, and, in some instances, intoxication.

If you are facing a criminal case, fill out our free online case assessment to see how Oberheiden, P.C. can help.

Put our highly experienced team on your side

Dr. Nick Oberheiden
Dr. Nick Oberheiden

Founder

Attorney-at-Law

John W. Sellers
John W. Sellers

Former Senior Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice

Local Counsel

Joanne Fine DeLena
Joanne Fine DeLena

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney

Local Counsel

Joe Brown
Joe Brown

Former U.S. Attorney & Former District Attorney

Local Trial & Defense Counsel

Amanda Marshall
Amanda Marshall

Former U.S. Attorney

Local Counsel

Aaron L. Wiley
Aaron L. Wiley

Former Federal Prosecutor

Local Counsel

Roger Bach
Roger Bach

Former Special Agent (OIG)

Michael Koslow
Michael Koslow

Former Supervisory Special Agent (FBI)

Chris Quick
Chris Quick

Former Special Agent (FBI & IRS-CI)

Kevin M. Sheridan
Kevin M. Sheridan

Former Special Agent (FBI)

Ray Yuen
Ray Yuen

Former Supervisory Special Agent (FBI)

Dennis A. Wichern
Dennis A. Wichern

Former Special Agent-in-Charge (DEA)

Impeccable Service

ratingratingratingratingrating

Nick Oberheiden is the absolute best federal litigation attorney. Nick gives you the immediate comfort of feeling 100% protected. He is polite, respectful— and extremely compelling. His legal strategy turned out to be brilliant.

– Marshall M.

View more testimonials

Contact Us Today

If you are under
investigation
you should contact us today

Contact the Experienced Attorneys of Oberheiden, P.C. Now for a Confidential Consultation

Contact Us Now