Prosecutors University Lesson #1: Reasonable Doubt

If we take a step back, understanding reasonable doubt isn't as difficult as it may seem. Looking at both what it is and what it is not can be instructive

By Brett Talley and Alice LaCour

The concept of reasonable doubt is one of the most fundamental and important in criminal law. And yet, it is also perhaps the most misunderstood. What it is and how it works has led to much confusion. The statement, “I know he’s guilty, but I don’t think I could convict,” is nonsensical in the law, but it is common in the public discourse precisely because people struggle with what reasonable doubt means.

It’s the nuance that gets people. If the rule was beyond all doubt, that would be so much easier. But it also wouldn’t work. The burden of proof is designed to balance the need to convict the guilty against our desire not to send innocent people to jail. If the standard were beyond all doubt, either no one would ever be convicted, or juries would ignore the standard and make up there on. Like so much in the law, criminal trials function in the space between black and white.

But if we take a step back, reasonable doubt isn’t as difficult as it might seem.

Richard Allen was tried for and convicted of the 2017 murders of 13-year-old Abby Williams and 14-year-old Libby German in Delphi, Indiana in 2024. Between the 2022 arrest and trial, many alternative theories emerged but were barred by the judge in the case due to what she said was a lack of evidence. The law tries to help the ordinary people who make up juries with this concept through a judge’s instructions. Every state has its own definition. The federal courts use something along these lines:

---

For those who are not paid subscribers, our next free article will drop Monday morning. For those who are, please read on.

---