The practice of the standard of proof in Chilean criminal trial procedure

Abstract

This paper presents the results of empirical research whose objective is to know the understanding and the use of the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” has had in its operation in the practice of the Chilean criminal procedure. The research identifies the main concerns expressed by the legal academia regarding the standard as well as those that arise in its daily use by the courts. For this purpose, three sources of information are used:

statistics from the Public Prosecutor’s Office (2006-2023) on conviction rates in ordinary trials; a sample of court decisions from January 2024 issued by courts of appeals (sixteen) and trial courts (twenty five) obtained from the Judicial Branch’s jurisprudential database; and interviews with six judges to learn about their personal experiences and how, in their respective courts, the standard of proof is used and understood. The results reveals differences between doctrinal concerns and practice. Additionally, the use of the standard shows lights and shadows that indicate it is not yet a consolidated notion in the country.