Go to People v. Downs, 2015 IL 117934 (June). Episode 080 (Duration 9:55).

The reasonable doubt question is answered, once and for all, by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Subscribe: Apple | Google | Spotify | Android | RSS | Direct Download

APPLE PODCASTS GOOGLE PODCASTS

SPOTIFY ANDROID RSS

DIRECT DOWNLOAD

The Illinois Supreme Court has put to rest the question of how to answer when the jury asks for a definition of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Meaning Of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

Here in Illinois, we do not provide a jury instruction on the meaning of “beyond  a reasonable doubt”.

We just don’t do it.

On its face that is kind of weird because we define everything else. We tell them what “knowing” means, we define “possession” and all these other terms.

But when it comes to one of the most important questions that the jury has to ponder. We take a pass.

Why Don’t We Do It?

“Illinois is among the jurisdictions that do not define reasonable doubt. This court has long and consistently held that neither the trial court nor counsel should define reasonable doubt for the jury.” ¶ 19.

The idea is that the term speaks for itself. Any attempt to further define it will itself lead to confusion and error. We want the jury to wrestle with the term as part of their deliberation process.

We don’t define it for them beyond telling them it is the legal standard they must apply to find the defendant guilty.

The Reasonable Doubt Question

I have talked about this issue numerous times on this podcast. Here are some links to previous discussions and blog articles on this topic:

• Reasonable Doubt Demystified
• Reasonable Doubt Definition
• Reasonable Doubt Dangerous Game 

Obviously, I have been all over this topic because the courts have been making decisions relating to the issue. See People v. Gashi for the most recent reversal of a conviction because of a “wrong” response given to the jury. Any time there are reversals of a conviction due to inaccurate jury instructions, you bet attorneys will talk about it.

I’m no different.

The “Reasonable Doubt Answer” Game

My friend Evan Bruno came on to discuss the topic. He explained that one way to answer the question was to twist it around on them. See Reasonable Doubt Demystified.

It is a doubt that is reasonable.

These are the games we were left playing. You see, the court has an obligation to answer legal questions yet we have a system that strongly discourages any further attempts to define the legal standard that is applicable.

But it all ends now.

Reasonable Doubt Question Answered

The Illinois Supreme Court has ended the game. In this case, involving a murder trial the jury sent a note back to the parties asking about reasonable doubt.

They asked:

What is your definition of reasonable doubt, 80%, 70%, 60%?

The trial court replied with a note of his own saying:

We cannot give you a definition it is your duty to define.

The appellate court reversed. It said that the jury was clearly thinking in terms of percentages and even went as low as 60%. The trial judge had an obligation to ensure that they did not apply something less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, now the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that this response was the correct response.

In a 10 page ruling, the court has answered this question once and for all and has put the question to bed.

All the cases before this one that – have said it was wrong to answering the jury’s request for a definition with something along the lines of “you must define it” – are now themselves wrong and overruled.

It is now acceptable to tell a jury they must define the term for themselves. Now, obviously I would wait for the question. But when it comes, this will now be the “go-to” answer.

See also the resource page on Illinois criminal law trials.