Explaining Reasonable Doubt

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WOLO) — It’s a case that has captured local headlines for weeks and now it’s up to a jury to decide if Brett Parker will go home to his children or spend life behind bars. “The question is, is there enough evidence to convince the twelve men and women in the jury box that this defendant committed the crime that’s charged,” says Colin Miller, Associate Professor at the University of South Carolina’s School of Law. Miller says in a case, like this one, that has a lot of circumstantial evidence that may be difficult for the prosecution. “We don’t have a confession, we don’t have surveillance video showing what happened and therefore it’s up to the prosecution to prove not only that this defendant killed the victims but again, what was he thinking at the time of the killings?,” says Miller In a murder trial, Miller says, the prosecution has to prove an act the killing and they have to prove what is called mensrea. “A mental state, and that’s known as malice or forethought that he intended to kill the victim or that he at least knew that his act would result in the deaths of the victims,” says Miller Meanwhile, he says, the defense has to prove reasonable doubt. “And that reasonable doubt can be did he kill the victims or he’s claiming self defense,” says Miller Reasonable doubt is defined as: Solid doubt about the actual guilt of a defendant that arises or remains after careful and impartial examination of all evidence. For Brett Parker, it could mean freedom. “If he can plant in the juries minds reasonable doubt, was this self defense? As opposed to an intentional malicious killing, he can achieve a not guilty verdict,” says Miller