# What should be the standard of proof in a Senate impeachment trial? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2019, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141 "2019-11-07T19:59:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 22
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2019, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141/22 "2019-11-08T00:33:18Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > That is, IMO, a _much_ steeper standard than “no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person.” Paraphrasing what you wrote, you are essentially saying “reasonable doubt means that you, as a juror, must be so very certain of it that you would be willing to risk your own life on your decision.” And, while that may fit your own definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” you should recognize that it really is _not_ what the legal definition of the term means. I don’t think that quote you just reposted, from Wikipedia I believe, actually provides a definition of reasonable doubt. Defining a beyond a reasonable doubt as “There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person’s belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty” is effectively replacing “doubt” with “belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty”. We already knew what “doubt” means, the operative word is “reasonable”. The Wikipedia blurb shines no light on what is “reasonable”, except to say that some things are not reasonable. Your new quote from [legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com) ([POST=21960742]post #6[/POST]) actually defines “beyond a reasonable doubt” as “that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime”. This definition is consistent with mine, and perhaps this is not true of all people, but I am comfortable putting my life behind a conviction that is the _only_ logical explanation that can be derived from the facts. I will also point you to the federal jury instructions in effect for the Eleventh Circuit, which covers my state of Florida. **B3 [Definition of “Reasonable Doubt”](https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/courtdocs/clk/FormCriminalPatternJuryInstructionsCurrentComplete.pdf?revDate=20190124)** The Government’s burden of proof is heavy, but it doesn’t have to prove a Defendant’s guild beyond all possible doubt. The Government’s proof only has to exclude any “reasonable doubt” concerning the Defendant’s guilt. A “reasonable doubt” is a real doubt, based on your reason and common sense after you’ve carefully and impartially considered all the evidence in the case. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is proof so convincing that you would be willing to rely and act on it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. If you are so convinced that the Defendant has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. If you are not convinced, say so. I think I once said beyond a reasonable doubt was beyond all possible doubt, I admit that I was wrong and would prefer the newer definition that you quoted: > [@The Trump Impeachment Inquiry](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3464): > > My idea of beyond a reasonable doubt is that it must satisfy the juror such that, if their life depended on the correctness of their finding, there would be no hesitation. The logic being that, arguably, the most important of one’s affairs is their own life. ~Max --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-be-the-standard-of-proof-in-a-senate-impeachment-trial/843141)._