If you have just been charged with a crime, you have probably heard that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That phrase is the most important protection you have in a criminal case, and it is widely misunderstood. It does not mean the prosecutor must remove every possible doubt. It also does not mean a jury can convict because you “probably” did it.
This guide explains what the standard means in Massachusetts courts, how it compares with lower standards, and what happens when the evidence falls short.
What the Commonwealth Has to Prove
In Massachusetts, the prosecution is called the Commonwealth, and the burden of proof is entirely on it. The United States Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause “protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) applies the same rule. Commonwealth v. Russell, 470 Mass. 464, 468 (2015).
Two points follow. First, the standard applies to every element of the charge, not just the case as a whole. If a crime has three parts and the Commonwealth proves only two beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict must be not guilty. Second, the burden never moves to you. The District Court model jury instruction tells jurors that “[t]his burden of proof never shifts and that the defendant “is not required to call any witnesses or produce any evidence.” Instruction 2.160. You do not have to testify, and if you choose not to, the judge can tell the jury that it may not hold your silence against you. Instruction 3.600. For more on that choice, see our article on testifying in a Massachusetts criminal case.
How Massachusetts Judges Define Reasonable Doubt
For more than 150 years, Massachusetts judges explained reasonable doubt using language written by Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw in Commonwealth v. Webster, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 295, 320 (1850). The Webster charge was preferred but never required.
In Commonwealth v. Russell, decided January 26, 2015, the SJC used its supervisory power to require one uniform instruction in all criminal trials. The court said the new instruction uses more modern language, but preserves the power, efficacy, and essence of the Webster charge,” and that the traditional Webster charge should no longer be used.” 470 Mass. at 477–478. The District Courts Instruction 2.180 now states that it must be given verbatim.
The key sentences a Massachusetts jury hears are these:
- Proof beyond a reasonable doubt “does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.”
- A charge is proved if, after comparing and considering all the evidence, the jurors have “an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true.”
- “Moral certainty” means “the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs — based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case.”
- “It is not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.
- If a reasonable doubt remains after the jurors evaluate all the evidence, “the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted.”
Notice that Russell did not drop the phrase “moral certainty. It kept it and added a definition that ties it to the evidence in the case, which answers the main criticism of the older wording. In short, the jury must be firmly settled in its conclusion, based only on what was proved in the courtroom.
Why the Exact Words Matter
Courts are careful about these words because a loose definition can quietly lower the bar. In Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990), the Supreme Court struck down an instruction that described reasonable doubt as one that would give rise to a “grave uncertainty” and an “actual substantial doubt, because those words suggested more doubt was needed to acquit than the Constitution allows, especially when combined with a reference to moral” rather than evidentiary certainty. In Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994), the Court held that no particular form of words is required, so long as the instructions, taken as a whole, correctly convey the concept. It also warned that the meaning of moral certainty has drifted over time. That concern is one reason the SJC modernized the Massachusetts instruction in Russell.
Massachusetts also discourages homemade explanations. The notes to the District Court model instructions say that comparing the burden of proof to the certainty people use in important personal decisions is “strongly disfavored. If the approved wording is not followed, defense counsel can object.
The Presumption of Innocence
The burden of proof and the presumption of innocence work together. Jurors are told that the complaint is only an accusation and is not evidence, and that the presumption of innocence “stays with the defendant unless and until the evidence convinces you unanimously as a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Instruction 2.160. An arrest, a police report, or the fact that a case went to trial proves nothing.
How Reasonable Doubt Compares With Other Legal Standards
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in American law, and it is the standard for deciding guilt in a criminal case. You will run into lower standards at other points in the process, and it helps to keep them straight:
- Probable cause: the standard for an arrest and for issuing a criminal complaint. When a clerk-magistrate decides whether to issue a complaint after a show-cause hearing, the question is probable cause, not guilt. See Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310 (2002), and our post What Is a Show-Cause Hearing in Massachusetts?
- Preponderance of the evidence: “more likely than not. This is the usual standard in civil cases, such as a lawsuit over a car accident. It is also the standard at a probation violation hearing. Commonwealth v. Holmgren, 421 Mass. 224, 226 (1995). See What Happens When You Are Accused of Violating Probation.
- Clear and convincing evidence: a middle standard used in some civil and administrative matters. For example, the SJC requires the Sex Offender Registry Board to prove a persons risk classification by clear and convincing evidence. Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 380316 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 473 Mass. 297 (2015).
How Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers Argue Reasonable Doubt
Prosecutors usually focus on what the standard is not. Expect to hear that the Commonwealth does not have to prove its case beyond all possible doubt, that jurors may use common sense, and that a case can rest on circumstantial evidence. That last point goes back to Webster itself, which reasoned that requiring absolute certainty “would exclude circumstantial evidence altogether.” Because the burden stays with the Commonwealth, a prosecutor’s argument should not suggest that you have to prove or explain anything, and jurors are instructed not to draw any inference from a decision not to testify.
Defense lawyers focus on what the standard requires: an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, on every element. In practice, that often means:
- Testing each element separately, such as identity, intent, or possession, rather than the story as a whole.
- Showing gaps in the investigation: evidence that was not collected, tested, or preserved.
- Challenging credibility, including inconsistent statements, bias, motive to lie, or a poor opportunity to observe. See Wrongful Identifications.
- Using expert testimony where the science is contested. See our article on expert witnesses.
- Reminding the jury that “probably guilty” is, by the court’s own instruction, not enough.
When the Judge Can End the Case: Required Finding of Not Guilty
The standard also applies before a jury ever deliberates. Under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25(a), the judge shall enter a finding of not guilty” if the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction. The defense can move for a required finding when the Commonwealth rests and again at the close of all the evidence, and Rule 25 also allows the judge to act after a guilty verdict.
Older cases call this a motion for a directed verdict.” The test comes from Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677–678 (1979): viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, could any rational trier of fact have found each element beyond a reasonable doubt? Some evidence, “however slight,” is not enough. If an element is unproved, that charge ends there.
The Jury’s Role, Unanimity, and a Hung Jury
The jury decides the facts, and the judge instructs it on the law. In Massachusetts, a criminal verdict “shall be unanimous,” whether guilty or not guilty. Mass. R. Crim. P. 27(a); Instruction 2.160. If you waive a jury and have a bench trial, the judge applies the same beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
When jurors cannot agree, the judge may re-explain the law and send them back. Under G.L. c. 234A, § 68C, if they return a second time without a verdict, they cannot be sent out again without their consent unless they ask for further explanation of the law. If the jury remains deadlocked, the judge declares a mistrial. A hung jury is neither a conviction nor an acquittal, and the Commonwealth may generally retry the case. Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 325–326 (1984). Read more in our post Jury Cannot Agree.
What “Not Guilty” Means, and What It Doesn’t
A not guilty verdict means the Commonwealth did not prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not a finding that you are innocent.
An acquittal is final. Under double jeopardy principles, it ends the case on that charge, and the Commonwealth cannot retry you for it. Richardson, 468 U.S. at 325. Massachusetts law also requires the Commissioner of Probation and the court clerk to seal the record of a case that ends in a not guilty finding, unless you ask in writing that it not be sealed. G.L. c. 276, § 100C. See our article on who can see your criminal record.
There are limits. Because a probation violation hearing uses the lower preponderance standard, a judge can still find a probation violation based on the same conduct, even after an acquittal. Holmgren, 421 Mass. at 225–226.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does beyond a reasonable doubt mean 100% certain?
No. Massachusetts jurors are told it does not mean proof beyond all possible or imaginary doubt. It does require an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, based only on the evidence. A strong probability of guilt is not enough.
Do I have to prove I’m innocent?
No. The burden is on the Commonwealth from start to finish and never shifts. You are not required to testify, call witnesses, or present any evidence.
If I plead guilty, does the Commonwealth still have to prove its case?
No. A guilty plea or an admission gives up your right to make the Commonwealth prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. That is a major decision to make with counsel. See Plea Deals.
Talk to a Massachusetts Defense Lawyer About Your Case
The reasonable doubt standard is only as strong as the defense that holds the Commonwealth to it. If you have been charged with a crime, the Law Office of William J. Barabino in Medford can review the evidence against you, look for weaknesses in the Commonwealth’s proof, and explain your options. Attorney Barabino has over 23 years of experience in criminal defense and represents clients throughout Greater Boston.
Call 781-393-5900 for a confidential consultation.
Related Articles
Disclaimer
This article is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Massachusetts statutes, court rules, model jury instructions, and court decisions can change, and every case turns on its own facts. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are facing a criminal charge, consult a licensed Massachusetts criminal defense attorney about your situation.
