In the United States criminal justice system, the burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution or state. This cornerstone principle ensures that the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove their own innocence. This article will examine what the burden of proof entails and why it is so fundamental to due process and a fair trial.
What is the burden of proof?
The burden of proof refers to the obligation of a party in a trial to produce sufficient evidence to support their side of the case. In a criminal trial, the state bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not need to prove their innocence. The burden of proof has two key components:
- Production burden – the obligation to present evidence to support the claim.
- Persuasion burden – the obligation to persuade the judge or jury that the evidence supports the claim.
The state has both the production burden and persuasion burden. It must put forth evidence against the defendant and convince the fact-finder (judge or jury) that this evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What standards must the state meet?
There are two standards of proof that relate to the burden placed on the state in a criminal trial:
- Beyond a reasonable doubt – This is the highest standard used in the law and applies to criminal trials. The state must present evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant committed the crime. If there is reasonable doubt, the defendant must be acquitted.
- Preponderance of evidence – This is a lower standard that applies in civil trials. It requires showing that the fact sought is more likely than not true. This standard does not apply in criminal trials when someone’s freedom is on the line.
The high beyond a reasonable doubt standard reflects the gravity of depriving someone of liberty and seeks to minimize the risk of an innocent person being wrongly convicted. The state’s evidence must clear this high bar in order to obtain a guilty verdict.
Why is the burden on the state?
There are important policy reasons why the burden rests entirely on the state in a criminal proceeding:
- Presumption of innocence – The accused is presumed innocent from the start. The state must produce compelling evidence to overcome this presumption.
- Avoid wrongful convictions – An innocent defendant should not have to prove their innocence. Putting the burden on the state aims to minimize wrongful convictions.
- State’s investigative powers – The state has far more resources and powers to investigate a crime than an individual defendant.
- Due process – Requiring the state to prove guilt respects the due process rights guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments.
The burden of proof allocation recognizes that the state is in the best position to gather evidence and prove a criminal case. If the state cannot produce compelling proof against the accused, then the accused should go free.
When does the burden shift?
While the burden of proof always stays with the state, the burden of production can shift between the state and defendant. The burden of production refers to the obligation to present evidence on a particular issue to avoid losing on that issue.
For example, if the defendant raises an affirmative defense like self-defense or insanity, they take on the initial burden of producing enough evidence to properly raise that defense. The burden then shifts back to the state to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. So while the overall burden stays with the state, the burden of production may shift on discrete issues.
Common situations where the burden shifts
- Affirmative defenses (self-defense, insanity, etc.) – Defendant has initial burden to raise the defense, then burden shifts back to state to disprove.
- Suppression motions – Defendant must show evidence was obtained illegally, then burden shifts to state to show it was legal.
- Challenging a witness – Defendant must show a witness is unreliable, then burden shifts to state to rehabilitate the witness.
In these situations, the overarching burden remains on the state. But requiring the defendant to make a prima facie showing on specific issues allows cases to be decided efficiently while protecting the presumption of innocence.
What happens if the state fails to meet the burden?
If the prosecution fails to produce evidence that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should return a verdict of not guilty. The verdict does not necessarily mean the defendant is innocent, but that the state failed in its burden. If the jury nonetheless convicts despite insufficient proof, the defendant can seek to overturn the verdict by making a motion for acquittal or a new trial.
On the other hand, if the state meets its evidentiary burden, the defendant will be convicted unless they can show prejudicial legal errors were made in the proceedings. Common ways the defense can challenge a guilty verdict include:
- Motion for new trial based on legal errors
- Motion for acquittal claiming evidence was insufficient
- Appeal to a higher court contesting errors of law
While the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant has opportunities to challenge the validity of a guilty verdict if legal errors prevented a fair trial.
Conclusion
The burden of proof resting entirely on the state in criminal prosecutions is fundamental to the American justice system. This burden reflects the presumption of innocence and the state’s superior ability to gather evidence in building a case. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt sets an appropriately high bar to protect against wrongful convictions. While the burden may shift for discrete legal issues as a trial progresses, the ultimate burden remains on the state throughout. This serves as an important check against government power and upholds the due process rights of the accused.