The People V. . . . Reasonable Doubt

Another of those legal issues not fully understood by everybody is “reasonable doubt.”  

On the front end of a prosecution’s work, for the arrest, there is the requirement for “probable cause,” where a rational person sees sufficient evidence to warrant arrest.  It may or may not actually be enough to convict, but it appears to be serious enough that the public is probably safer by assuring the one accused is in custody.

On the back end of the prosecution’s work is the trial where they must prove beyond a “reasonable doubt” that the defendant is guilty.  While the accused may have motive, means, and opportunity, the prosecution is responsible for proving that the motive was real, that the means (weapon) is connected with the accused, and that the opportunity was real (having enough time, being close enough, being physically able, etc.).

In OJ’s case, Marcia Clark needed to show that spousal abuse was contemporary and not just distant past.  When was the last incident?  Were there any contemporary circumstances that would have triggered an episode?  Were other possible explanations shown by her to be false or highly unlikely?

Without a murder weapon in hand, was she able to show evidence that was not corrupted like blood evidence or witnesses linking OJ to the crime?  Could she show that the police work was sufficiently scrupulous and not questionable?  Were there any specifics which were more than circumstantial?  Was the circumstantial evidence compelling?  Was she able to explain evidence that countered her narrative of the murders?

Was Clark able to give a clear explanation of the opportunity available to OJ to do the murders?  Did she offer a clear and plausible timeline to show it was possible?  Did she explain how his arthritic knees were not a factor in the killing of two younger, fit, and competitive individuals?

A jury is the “reasonable person” looking to see if enough doubt was there about the prosecution’s proof.  What did they see in the evidence that may have been overlooked by the prosecution?  Did they have questions about the various witnesses and their credibility?

Not everyone accepts that the jury in the OJ trial was reasonable or had grounds to doubt the prosecution.  But that is not to be argued here.  My concern is to try to clarify what the standard of proof was for the jury.  It was not “proof beyond a shadow of doubt,” a stricter level of proof.  Nor is it simply “clear and convincing evidence” which may be doubted but taken on the face of it seems sufficient proof.  “Reasonable doubt” is in between, where the evidence may seem good but about which a rational person, without prejudice, may question the value of it.  The jury would have to agree in order to reach a verdict.  So it would be all of them seeing reasonable doubt about crucial evidence.  

Where a jury could not reach agreement, no verdict can be rendered.  Such a situation is called a “hung jury” and leads to the ending of this trial and a decision by the prosecution whether or not to ask for another trial with a new jury.  That was what Johnny Cochran was most hopeful to get, one recalcitrant juror who would not go along with the rest.  But that did not happen in this case.  The whole jury agreed there was “reasonable doubt.”  

In Episode Six, we see Lange admitting to violating evidence protocol by taking OJ's shoes home over night before turning them in.  Will enough of the trial be shown to help us see why “reasonable doubt” was valid in OJ’s case?  Will any of the rest of the trial scenes in this series give evidence that the prosecution’s narrative should be doubted?  We’ll see.