The Forgotten Dinner Guest:

The "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

Standard in a Motion for a Judgment

of Acquittal in a Federal Bench Trial

Jared Kneitelt

Abstract

In comparison to civil trials, criminal trials are decided on more stringentstandardsofproof Hom.hmlawpc.comoore's Federal Practice states,

"Rule 29 has no real application m.hmlawpc.comagallon-Jimenez, 32 United States v. Carter,"

and UnitedStates v. Stubler34-none ofm.hmlawpc.comotion for Acquittal" in Prosecutor v. Kunara78 for

support.

Hom.hmlawpc.comotion to Dismiss Charges" in Prosecutor v.

Tadid," the Trial Chamber's "Order on the Motions to Dismiss the

Indictment at the Close of the Prosecutor's Case" in Prosecutor v.

Delali6," the Trial Chamber's "Decision of Trial Chamber I on the

Defence Motion to Dismiss" in Prosecutor v. Blaikid," and the Trial

Chamber's "Decision on Motion for m.hmlawpc.comber in Blakd.m.hmlawpc.comined the practice in five domestic jurisdictions-

England and m.hmlawpc.come

support for Kordid's proposition. Hom.hmlawpc.comental misunderstanding of hom.hmlawpc.complicitly prefers-in

attempts to avoid the tm.hmlawpc.coment of Acquittal,

Nonjury Trial"

To remedy the problems previously discussed, the author proposes

the follom.hmlawpc.comotion, there m.hmlawpc.coment bears the burden of

proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the

government cannot do so on its own evidence, the defendant must be not

guilty.