Case comment—United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005): quantification of the ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ standard

Abstract

There are many reasons for objecting to quantifying the "proof beyond reasonable doubt standard of criminal law as a percentage probability. They are divided into ethical and policy reasons, on the one hand, and reasons arising from the nature of logical probabilities, on the other. It is argued that these reasons are substantial and suggest that the criminal standard of proof should not be given a precise number. But those reasons do not rule out a minimal imprecise number. "Well above 80% is suggested as a standard, implying that any attempt by a prosecutor or jury to take the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" standard to be 80% or less should be ruled out as a matter of law.