Legal Question in Criminal Law in Virginia

If I understand Wikipedia correctly, any doubt at all that a jury member might have is a "reasonable doubt". Until I read that definition, I had thought that juries are supposed to concern themselves with whether or not their doubts are reasonable, not whether or not they had any doubts.

Which is correct? And can you tell me whether or not there is legally any such thing as "unreasonable doubt"? I know that I possess reasonable and unreasonable doubts regarding almost any sales pitch that's thrown my way (and work hard at discerning which doubts are reasonable and which aren't) - but if I were the member of a jury member, would there be any difference?


Asked on 7/07/11, 11:58 am

1 Answer from Attorneys
Jonathon Moseley Moseley & Associates Law Firm

I think you are mixing up different ideas. From the juror's perspective, it is up to each juror to decide for themselves if they believe someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Basically, a reasonable doubt is something that is supported by some actual evidence in the case, or that the evidence fails to prove or distinguish one situation from another. That is the same evidence could show two different situations and does not prove one over the other. The verdict by a jury could be over-turned on appeal if the appeals court finds *NO* evidence in the record to support their decision. So if there is any evidence at all (or ambiguity in the evidence) to support the jury's decision, then the court and the appeal court will uphold the jury's decision.

An unreasonable doubt would be something that has nothing to do with the evidence, such as maybe space aliens secretly stole the money using a transporter or maybe everyone is lying or something with no proof at all.

Generally, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Things there are provided by users, not by anyone with expertise (necessarily).

Read more
Answered on 7/14/11, 8:08 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in Virginia