In a criminal trial, the government must prove the elements of the crime the defendant is accused of beyond a reasonable doubt. So, what exactly does this mean?

Everyone has heard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We see it brought up in television shows like Law & Order, CSI and, well, pick your favorite crime drama. We also see it in real life situations like the OJ Simpson murder case. What is rarely explained, however, is what the phrase actually means and what must be shown.

The first thing to understand is what beyond reasonable doubt does not mean. It does not mean proving by a 51 percent to 49 percent majority. Much more is required, although the evidence provided by the prosecution does not have to be absolute. Instead, the government must provide sufficient evidence that a reasonable person would not reasonably doubt that the defendant did each element of the crime.

Admittedly, this is still a fairly vague standard. Many legal experts argue that this why we sometimes see such bizarre findings from juries. They simply are not comfortable with the standard. One juror may think it means one thing while another juror may think it means more or less than the first juror.

The OJ Simpson case presents a great example. The defendant lawyers and prosecutors presented piles of evidence in favour of their sides. They then presented all types of experts and such to argue against the evidence applied by the opposing party. How was the jury supposed to figure out "beyond a reasonable doubt" given the mass of information? Well, the defense didn't really present much of a plausible case, but then the prosecution made a huge mistake.

In law school, they teach you never to ask a witness a question you do not know the answer to. In the Simpson case, the prosecution just assumed the gloves would fit Simpson. As we all know, they didn't. The PROSECUTION presented the jury with a simple to see and understand piece of critical evidence that raised reasonable doubt. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. Simple put, the best evidence that the burden of proof had not been met was provided by the prosecution. A monumental gaff that will be talked about in the legal profession for years!

Aazdak Alisimo writes criminal law articles for CriminalDefenseLawyerNet.com where you can find a criminal defense lawyer near you.