As of Monday, the Derek Chauvin murder trial is underway in the Hennepin County District Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Chauvin, a white, now-former Minneapolis police officer, is charged with second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd, a black man. Floyd was arrested on May 25, 2020 after a store clerk alleged he had passed a counterfeit $20 bill. During the arrest, Chauvin pinned the handcuffed Floyd face-down on the street. Chauvin knelt with his knee on the back of Floyd’s neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds, which resulted in Floyd’s death.
But of course you know all of this already. The news of Floyd’s death rocked every corner of America during an already anxious time, as we dealt with the Covid-19 pandemic and widespread lockdowns. The tragedy launched a whole summer’s worth of protests across the country against all-too common police brutality, especially against black people.
As the Internet was abuzz on Monday with talk of Chauvin’s trial, I saw a few people comment that Chauvin will be found guilty “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” And that small comment is what has launched today’s newsletter.
It’s a common mistake, but the term “beyond a shadow of a doubt” is a colloquial saying and not a legal term. If doubt were a tree in the afternoon, you would be so far away from that tree that you don’t even touch its long shadow. We use it in every day conversation, such as “I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have the best sales team in the entire company!” It’s just an expression.
So let’s talk about the actual, legal burden of proof. Lawyer friends: unless you feel you need a law school refresher, you may want to quit reading now. But I hope my other readers find this interesting. By the end of this newsletter, you’ll be able to discuss the burdens of proof with ease and confidence! And what more could you want than that? (Have they invented the sarcasm font yet?)
Most simply, the burden of proof refers to the obligation to prove guilt. For instance, the prosecution has the burden of proof in a criminal trial—the prosecution must prove guilt and the defense does not have to prove innocence.
But the phrase “burden of proof” is also frequently used to refer to the amount of proof required to allow the fact finder (judge or jury) to reach a certain level of certainty in their conclusion. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest burden of proof, requiring the most evidence and more certainty of guilt than any other level. Different cases require different levels of proof and certainty. You may have heard some or all of these phrases without realizing they all exist together on a sliding scale of proof, going from least amount required to greatest amount required.
Reasonable Suspicion
If a police officer wants to stop and talk to or search a person, he or she must have a “reasonable suspicion” of some criminal behavior to justify performing the stop and search. This is the lowest burden of proof out there.
Probable Cause
If a police officer wants to actually arrest someone, he or she needs “probable cause” that the person committed a crime. Probable cause is also needed to support the issuance of a formal and more expansive search warrant. There’s no hard and fast rule on this, but it definitely requires less proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard, so less than 50% certainty is needed.
Preponderance of the Evidence
This is the lowest standard of evidence used in court cases. There is a “preponderance of the evidence” if the party with the burden convinces the fact finder (judge or jury) that there is greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is the burden of proof used in most civil trials, especially those where someone is simply suing for money damages.
Clear and Convincing Evidence
This is a mid-level standard of evidence that may be used in some civil or criminal cases, as decided by each individual state. Here, the evidence is considered “clear and convincing” if it is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue. The party with the burden of proof must show it is highly probable that they are correct. Examples of cases that may use this standard are those involving fraud, wills, withdrawing life support, or terminating parental rights.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
This is the highest burden of proof and it applies to most criminal trials. If you have a reasonable doubt (meaning, legitimate doubt) about the conviction, you can’t convict. There must be no other reasonable explanations for the crime—only unreasonable explanations. The jury must be virtually certain, but it does not require 100% certainty.
So there you have it. The prosecution in the Chauvin case must show that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on one of the three charges. I don’t know all the ins and outs of the case, but as a interested observer I feel comfortable saying, in the non-legal sense, that I believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Chauvin is responsible for George Floyd’s death, and I’d like to see him face some consequences.
Like what you’ve read? Please subscribe to get this type of content delivered to your inbox once a week. I appreciate you more than you know!
In my experience on the street, most cops have a baseline of reasonable suspicion, but quite a few operate at a level of probable cause. "It's all in the paperwork".
Good refresher! NYT just updated knee time to 9 minutes 29 seconds ... which, in my opinion, only makes it 33 seconds more certain beyond a reasonable doubt than it already was.