In a California criminal case, the prosecution carries the burden of proof and must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That rule matters most in the days after an arrest, when the police report reads like a finished story, and the charges look final. Many people assume they must explain themselves, so they talk to detectives before understanding how much the state still has to prove.
At Hurwitz Law Group, we build every defense around one question: Can the prosecution prove each element of the charge with admissible evidence? We challenge weak evidence early because the prosecution, not you, bears the burden of proof in criminal cases. You can call our team to talk through what the state has and where its proof may fall short.
In state court, the prosecution, called the People, bears the burden of proving guilt. Under Evidence Code section 520, the party claiming that a person is guilty of a crime has the burden of proof on that issue. You never have to prove your innocence.
That rule also has constitutional roots. In In re Winship, the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process bars a conviction unless the prosecution proves every fact necessary to the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. These due process protections apply in every state criminal courtroom.
In practice, our first job is not to tell your side of the story. Our job is to examine what the prosecution can prove with admissible evidence and identify every element it cannot support. We treat the charge as a checklist the state must complete, one element at a time.
Penal Code section 1096 presumes every defendant is innocent until the contrary is proved, and places on the state the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains as to whether guilt has been shown, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.
The statute also defines the standard. Reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, because everything in human affairs is open to some imaginary doubt. Instead, it describes evidence that leaves jurors unable to say they feel an abiding conviction that the charge is true.
An abiding conviction is a settled, lasting belief, not a hunch that might change by the next morning. Consider a theft case built on one employee's identification and a grainy video that never shows a face. Jurors might think the defendant probably took the merchandise yet still lack an abiding conviction, and that gap calls for a not guilty verdict.
This is why the burden of proof in criminal cases is higher than in civil disputes. A wrong verdict can cost someone their freedom, so the law demands far more certainty before a conviction.
Different stages of a case use different levels of proof, and confusing them causes real anxiety. The following standards appear most often in criminal and related proceedings:
An arrest or a preliminary hearing ruling only shows that a case can move forward, not that the prosecution can prove it.
If you were arrested and feel like the outcome is already decided, it is not. Call Hurwitz Law Group at (323) 244-4147 to have our team review what the prosecution can actually prove.
The burden rarely moves to the defense, but a few situations change the analysis. Knowing when it does helps you make informed choices about trial strategy.
A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is the clearest exception. Under Penal Code section 25(b), the defense must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was legally insane at the time of the offense. Evidence Code section 522 reinforces that rule by placing the burden on whoever claims that a person is or was insane.
Because this plea shifts a real burden onto you, we review medical history and expert support carefully before recommending it. The decision affects how the entire case is tried.
Outside of insanity, the protection stays strong. Evidence Code section 501 provides that any statute assigning a burden of proof in a criminal case, other than the insanity rule, remains subject to Penal Code section 1096.
That means the presumption of innocence still governs, and in many trials the defense only needs to raise a reasonable doubt. An affirmative defense admits some facts but offers a legal justification or excuse, such as self-defense. We explain how affirmative defenses work and whether one fits your facts before trial begins.
The standard does not disappear after the verdict. It also shapes sentencing, while some related proceedings follow different rules.
Many felony statutes set three possible terms of imprisonment, often called the lower, middle, and upper terms. Under Penal Code section 1170(b)(2), a judge may impose the upper term only when facts behind the aggravating circumstances were stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Prior convictions are the main exception because the court may rely on certified conviction records.
We look for aggravating allegations early, so the prosecution must meet this standard at sentencing as well.
A driving under the influence (DUI) arrest can trigger a separate license action by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). According to the DMV's administrative hearing guide, these hearings are separate from criminal court, are held before a hearing officer instead of a judge, and use less strict rules for admitting evidence.
Our team handles the DMV hearing after a DUI arrest alongside the criminal case, so the two tracks stay coordinated.
Holding the prosecution to its burden is active work, not a slogan. At Hurwitz Law Group, our defense follows a sequence that tests the state's proof at every stage:
Each step keeps the focus where the law puts it: On what the prosecution can prove, not on what you must explain.
No. Under Evidence Code section 930, a criminal defendant has the privilege not to be called as a witness or to testify, and we build defenses that never depend on you proving innocence.
No. Penal Code section 1096 applies to every defendant in a criminal action, so misdemeanor and felony charges both require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Once self-defense is properly raised, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in lawful self-defense. The Judicial Council's standard self-defense jury instruction tells jurors exactly that.
No. Evidence that only makes guilt more likely than not meets the preponderance standard in Evidence Code section 115, which falls short of the proof a conviction requires.
No. Welfare and Institutions Code section 701 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt before a juvenile court sustains a petition alleging a crime under section 602.
Yes. Under Penal Code section 1118.1, the judge must enter an acquittal on any charge the evidence cannot sustain, and we make that motion when the prosecution's proof falls short.
A charge sheet lists what the prosecution claims, but it proves nothing until the evidence holds up in court. The space between an accusation and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is where your defense takes shape.
Founding attorney Brian Hurwitz has more than 10 years of criminal defense experience, has been recognized by Super Lawyers, and holds a Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent rating. Our team reviews police reports, recordings, and witness statements to find weaknesses in the prosecution's case.
We are available 24/7, offer payment plans, and speak Spanish. From our Los Angeles office, we defend people facing charges across the city and the surrounding counties.
Call (323) 244-4147 or reach us through our contact page for a free case evaluation about how the burden of proof in criminal cases applies to your California charges.
Brian Hurwitz Has 10+ Years of Criminal Defense Experience
Affordable Fees and Payment Plans
We Offer No-Cost, Confidential Phone Consultations
