Definite Convictions: United States v. Alt and the Seventh Circuit’s Prohibition on Defining “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”

The Seventh Circuit prohibits judges and attorneys from defining “beyond a reasonable doubt” to jurors. While United States v. Alt crystalized this prohibition in early 2023, the circuit has effectively banned definition of the phrase for much longer. Yet, a growing consensus of psychological research into the standard reveals that when left undefined, it fails to protect criminal defendants from uncertain convictions that violate the requirements of due process. What’s more, the phrase was never supposed to serve as a standard of proof in the first place—its historical origins reveal it functioning to assuage the spiritual concerns of early Christian jurors when sitting in judgement of defendants. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has refused to require lower courts to define the phrase or give any meaningful guidance in their attempts to do so, enabling Alt’s misguided prohibition.

This Note argues that the Seventh Circuit’s prohibition against defining “beyond a reasonable doubt” violates Due Process, threatens judicial legitimacy, obstructs the development of American criminal law, and is ethically wrong. To achieve this, this Note engages in an interdisciplinary investigation of the standard, exploring it as an object of occult history, American jurisprudence, and psychological study. This Note concludes by marshaling this interdisciplinary understanding into a genealogical critique of the Alt prohibition as a legal solution sufficient to redirect the Seventh Circuit’s precedent and offering practical workarounds and implications for criminal practitioners.