BEFORE I BEGIN MY REVIEW OF THE
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, I WOULD
LIKE TO ADDRESS TWO VERY CRUCIAL
POINTS OF LAW, AND THEY WERE
TOUCHED ON BY THE STATE.
THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE,
AND WHAT PROOF BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT MEANS.
THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE,
THE DEFENDANT IS PRESUMED
INNOCENT.
THAT’S THE STARTING POINT.
HE’S PRESUMED INNOCENT OF THESE
CHARGES.
THIS PRESUMPTION REMAINS WITH
HIM THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE
TRIAL, THE PRESENTATION OF THE
EVIDENCE, THROUGHOUT THE COURSE
OF YOUR DELIBERATIONS, UNTIL AND UNLESS THE STATE HAS PROVED ITS
UNLESS THE STATE HAS PROVED ITS
CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE TO
PROVE HIS INNOCENCE.
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, THE
STARTING POINT.
THE DEFENDANT DOESN’T HAVE TO
TRY TO CATCH UP.
HE STARTS AT THE PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE.
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
HE’S
HERE’S THE DEFINITION THE JUDGE
READ YOU.
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
IS SUCH PROOF AS ORDINARY
PRUDENT MEN AND WOMEN WOULD ACT
UPON IN THEIR MOST IMPORTANT
AFFAIRS.
A REASONABLE DOUBT IS A DOUBT
THAT IS BASED UPON REASON AND
COMMON SENSE.
IT DOES NOT MEAN A FANCIFUL OR
OR CAPRICIOUS DOUBT, NOR DOES IT
MEAN BEYOND ALL POSSIBILITY OF
DOUBT.
THE LAW RECOGNIZES THREE
STANDARDS OF PROOF.
THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE IS THE FIRST AND LOWEST
STANDARD.
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IS
THE NEXT STANDARD.
AND THE THIRD STANDARD IS PROOF
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
AND THE WAY WE LAWYERS SOMETIMES
ILLUSTRATE WHAT THESE THREE
STANDARDS MEAN IS THROUGH THE
SCALES OF JUSTICE, RIGHT.
THE SCALES OF JUSTICE EQUALLY
BALANCED.
WHEN YOU APPLY THE STANDARD OF
THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE, IT IS ALSO CALLED THE
SCINTILLA OF THE EVIDENCE.
A SINGLE GRAIN OF SAND TIPS THE
SCALES IN THE FAVOR OF ONE PARTY
OR THE OTHER.
AND THIS BURDEN OF PROOF IS USED
IN MANY CIVIL CASES.
SOMEBODY -- IF THE STATE WANTS
TO TAKE AWAY YOUR DRIVER’S
LICENSE, FOR AN EXAMPLE, THAT IS
THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE
STATE HAS IN THAT TYPE OF A
CASE.
THEY HAVE TO JUST EVER SO
SLIGHTLY CONVINCE THE FINDER OF
FACT THAT THEIR EVIDENCE
SUPPORTS THEIR ACTION.
THE NEXT STANDARD IS CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
THAT’S PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY,
RIGHT?
IT IS CLEAR EVIDENCE, AND IT
CONVINCES YOU, A FINDER OF FACT,
THAT THE ACTION IS CORRECT.
THIS IS A STANDARD OF PROOF THAT
IS USED IF THE STATE WANTS TO
TAKE AWAY YOUR CHILDREN.
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
IT TIPS THE SCALES MORE IN
ONE -- THE FAVOR OF ONE PARTY
OVER THE OTHER.
THE HIGHEST STANDARD IN THIS
COUNTRY IS PROOF BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THE STATE HAS
TO CONVINCE YOU IS THAT THE
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE COMPLETELY
ELIMINATES ANY REASONABLE DOUBT,
OR IN OTHER WORDS, LEAVING ONLY
UNREASONABLE DOUBT.
CAPRICIOUS, FANCIFUL.
CAPRICIOUS DOUBT, CAPRICIOUS
MEANS UNPREDICTABLE.
FANCIFUL.
SPACE ALIENS MOVED IN, INHABITED
THE BODY OF DEREK CHAUVIN, AND
CAUSED THIS.
THAT’S FANCIFUL.
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, IT IS
THE HIGHEST STANDARD IN THE LAW.
DOESN’T MEAN BEYOND ALL
POSSIBILITY OF DOUBT, BECAUSE I
SUPPOSE SPACE ALIENS MAY HAVE
BEEN INHABITING HIS BODY, BUT
THAT’S OBVIOUSLY FANCIFUL AND
CAPRICIOUS.
SO THESE TWO STANDARDS, THE
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
WORK IN CONCERT WITH EACH OTHER.
YOU START WITH THE PROPOSITION
THAT MR. CHAUVIN IS INNOCENT OF
THESE CHARGES.
THE STATE HAS TO ADVANCE
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE
YOU THAT THE ONLY DOUBTS THAT ARE REMAINING ARE UNREASONABLE