The Burden of Proof: Why It Matters So Much in Criminal Cases

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, understanding California’s burden of proof standard is crucial. 

In our justice system, those accused of crimes are innocent unless the prosecution can prove otherwise. This cornerstone, along with the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, sets an appropriately high bar to overcome before the state can take away a person’s liberty.

At Kolacia Law, we’ve handled hundreds of criminal cases over the past 18 years and recognize this vital legal principle that gives every defendant strong protections.

As we’ll explore here, not all legal cases handle the burden of proof the same way. But in criminal law, stacking the deck heavily in favor of defendants helps prevent wrongful convictions and upholds essential civil rights.

What Burden of Proof Actually Means

Legally speaking, the “burden of proof” refers to the obligation to prove a disputed charge or allegation. The side that shoulders this burden has to provide compelling evidence to establish key facts related to guilt or liability.

In any U.S. criminal proceeding, meeting the burden falls entirely on the prosecution. They bear sole responsibility for gathering and presenting evidence that convinces a judge or jury that the defendant committed the alleged crime. Defense lawyers like us don’t have to prove anything or offer any evidence at all.

Why Proof “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Matters

The precise standard the prosecution must satisfy depends on whether a case gets filed as a civil or criminal matter. For civil lawsuits, the bar set by California law is “preponderance of evidence” – often said to mean a greater than 50% chance a claim is true based on the proof.

But for criminal charges, where a person’s freedom hangs in the balance, the evidentiary requirement ratchets much higher. Our state’s penal code says prosecutors bear the burden of proving guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

This stringent standard exists for good reason. According to the California Innocence Project, even with all the protections in our justice system, about 1% of U.S. prisoners turn out to be truly innocent (approx. 20,000 people). Eliminating every possible doubt, unfortunately, can’t safeguard all defendants. But beyond a reasonable doubt, at least stacks odds heavily against undeserved punishment.

The Presumption of Innocence in Action

Besides defining “reasonable doubt,” California law doesn’t specify exactly how much evidence satisfies this rigorous burden in criminal proceedings. Rather than aiming to eliminate all doubt, our state’s standard focuses on presuming defendants remain innocent as charges get leveled against them.

So technically, the prosecution’s burden involves overcoming this strong presumption baked into our justice system before they can secure a conviction. This means collecting and presenting evidence that doesn’t just suggest possible guilt but effectively proves culpability beyond reasonable question.

In practical terms, this requires convincing a judge or jury that no rational, sensible interpretation of the facts aligns with innocence. Unless the truth and credibility of evidence dispel doubt to this degree, the presumption of innocence prevails under the law.

Meeting the Burden: What It Takes

During trials, it ultimately falls on judges and juries to decide whether prosecutors meet the reasonable doubt burden in California criminal cases. This involves scrutinizing evidence submitted and assessing whether it proves guilt so thoroughly that no reasonable uncertainty remains.

For juries, in particular, understanding this standard takes patience. We walk our clients through what to expect, including lengthy jury instructions dealing with the burden of proof requirements. The judge explains not just that prosecutors must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt but also what that extremely high bar legally entails.

In deliberations, jurors don’t vote on guilt upfront. First, they rigorously discuss and debate evidence to determine whether it appears credible, complete, and compelling enough to eliminate doubts a responsible, prudent mind could have. Only unshakable belief in prosecutorial facts permits a guilty verdict.

The Consequences of Failing to Prove Guilt

In cases lacking adequate investigation before arrests occur or where evidence seems flimsy from the outset, prosecutors often struggle to marshal facts convincingly proving guilt. Without air-tight cases, meeting the reasonable doubt standard becomes impossible.

And if the jury finds the prosecution’s burden unmet, acquittal results. Even with seemingly damning evidence, just a shred of reasonable uncertainty as to facts or interpretation requires a not-guilty verdict. Also, unbiased consideration of all testimony and information must support conviction before jurors can rightly decide to convict.

Using Burden of Proof to Your Advantage

At Kolacia Law, our attorneys take strategic approaches, including affirmative defenses, when fighting California criminal cases. But the prosecution’s sole burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt offers a built-in advantage many defendants have.

Ultimately, this right, along with the presumption of innocence, forces the state to make an ironclad case before stripping someone’s liberty. If you or someone you love now faces prosecution, contact Kolacia Law to discuss how we can put the burden of proof standard fully to work. 

With decades of combined experience, our lawyers stand ready to strategically challenge the prosecution’s evidence at every step using this fundamental protection.

Author Bio

Daniel Kolacia is the CEO and Managing Partner of Kolacia Law Firm, a Rancho Cucamonga, CA, criminal defense law firm. As a former prosecutor with more than 15 years of experience in criminal defense, he is knowledgeable about both sides of the courtroom, an advantage he uses to help defend his clients. He has zealously represented clients in various legal matters, including white-collar crimes, misdemeanors, felonies, traffic cases, and other criminal charges.

Daniel received his Juris Doctor from the Southwestern University School of Law and is a member of the California Bar Association. He has received numerous accolades for his work and has worked on several high-profile cases featured on Dateline, CNBC, Los Angeles Times, and various local publications.

LinkedIn | State Bar Association | Avvo | Google