Reasonable doubt is not defined by law. It’s individual to each person. However, if parties are fighting over money, the jury would have to believe the evidence by a “preponderance of evidence” or 51% – a tipping of the justice scales – in order to award one of the parties. If the Government wants to terminate a parent’s rights to their child(ren), the jury would have to believe the evidence is “clear and convincing evidence.” When liberty and justice are at stake, the proof must be even greater than that required to terminate a parent’s rights. The evidence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Government were trying to take your parental rights from you, how sure would you want them to be about the evidence against you? …and beyond a reasonable doubt is even higher than that.