What is the "presumption of innocence"?

All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they are convicted, either in a trial or as a result of pleading guilty. This presumption means not only that the prosecutor must convince the jury of the defendant's guilt, but also that the defendant need not say or do anything in his own defense. If the prosecutor can't convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant goes free.

The presumption of innocence, coupled with the fact that the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, makes it difficult for the government to put innocent people behind bars.

How can I tell from reading a criminal statute whether I'm guilty of the crime it defines?

All criminal statutes define crimes in terms of required acts and a required state of mind, usually described as the actor's "intent." These requirements are known as the "elements" of the offense.

A prosecutor must convince a judge or jury that all of the elements of the crime are there: that the defendant did the acts and had the intent described in the statute. For example, commercial burglary is commonly defined as entering a building belonging to another person, with the intent to commit petty or grand theft (that is, to steal) or any felony.

To convict a person of this offense, the prosecutor would have to prove three elements:

1. The defendant entered the structure.
2. The structure belonged to another person.
3. At the time the defendant entered the structure, he intended to commit petty or grand theft or any felony.

Break the crime down into its required elements to see if each applies in your situation.

What standard is used in criminal trials to prove a defendant is guilty?

The prosecutor must convince the judge or jury hearing the case that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." This standard is very hard to meet. (By contrast, in noncriminal cases, such as an accident or breach of contract, a plaintiff has to prove her case only by a preponderance of the evidence -- just over 50%.)

As a practical matter, the high burden of proof in criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant's most common defense is often to argue that there is reasonable doubt -- that is, that the prosecutor hasn't done a sufficient job of proving that the defendant is guilty.

If I'm accused of a crime, am I guaranteed a trial by a jury?