NewsOctober 18, 2013

One of the most familiar standards in U.S. criminal law actually originated in England as a way of convincing pious jurors they could convict a defendant without risking eternal damnation, a local prosecutor said. Speaking at a SEMO Pachyderm Club meeting Thursday night, Cape Girardeau County prosecuting attorney Chris Limbaugh said the phrase "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" -- which he called "the most important phrase in our criminal justice system" -- came from a 1970 Supreme Court case, but the concept actually predates the U.S. ...

One of the most familiar standards in U.S. criminal law actually originated in England as a way of convincing pious jurors they could convict a defendant without risking eternal damnation, a local prosecutor said.

Speaking at a SEMO Pachyderm Club meeting Thursday night, Cape Girardeau County prosecuting attorney Chris Limbaugh said the phrase "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" -- which he called "the most important phrase in our criminal justice system" -- came from a 1970 Supreme Court case, but the concept actually predates the U.S. Constitution.

It originated in England as a means of reassuring reluctant jurors, many of whom were Christians who considered a wrongful conviction a mortal sin, basing their views on the biblical admonition against sitting in judgment, Limbaugh said.

"'Beyond a reasonable doubt' was originally a theological doctrine to convince jurors that they could convict a defendant" without risking their own souls, he said. "It was first created to ... console jurors that convicting someone was OK."

Today, the concept serves a more practical function: preventing erroneous convictions, Limbaugh said.

He said the standard is a constitutional requirement, but the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not appear verbatim anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!

The language comes from a 1970 case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the due process clauses in the Fifth and 14th amendments to mean that prosecutors have to prove defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Limbaugh said.

"We want to make sure that when somebody is convicted that they're actually the guilty party," he said. "The government should not be able to ... seize their person without being that sure."

Sometimes that means guilty parties go free, he said, citing an attempted burglary case he prosecuted recently in which a defense attorney managed to create enough doubt in jurors' minds that they acquitted the suspect despite eyewitness testimony.

"I welcome these high standards, though," Limbaugh said. "This is what we should demand of our government before they seize somebody."

epriddy@semissourian.com

388-3642

Story Tags

Connect with the Southeast Missourian Newsroom:

For corrections to this story or other insights for the editor, click here. To submit a letter to the editor, click here. To learn about the Southeast Missourian’s AI Policy, click here.

Advertisement
Receive Daily Headlines FREESign up today!