Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Wudge]

The courts and legislatures have specifically avoided a specific numerical calibration in favor of the common sense and subjective reasoning of the jurors. The case you cited alludes to this fact.

Perhaps in a perfect world with perfect jurors but that is not the instant case nor the applicable law.

I never said it was the law.

I absolutely agree that all criminal courts understand the subjective nature that clearly exists for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, courts like it this way; they prefer the vagueness and ambiguity.

 

[Manny]

Maybe this is a good definition.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

 

[Wudge]

Maybe this is a good definition.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

That is the definition that most states used to template the review of their defintion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt after the Supreme Court's ruling in Victor v. Nebraska.

I have posted elsewhere that in performing this review and rewrite, the template that most, if not all, states used to create their new model for reasonable doubt was: "The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty."

While no state ended up with the above as their new model definition for reasonable doubt, states did freely extract from it. But, basically, across our fifty states, there are now over forty different definitions of reasonable doubt.

Still, if you look at the above template definition, it comes across very clearly. So ask yourself this question: within the most important of your own affairs, what would constitute such a convincing character that you would be willing to act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your affairs? For example, would you drop your little child off in a situation where you thought there was 1 in a 100 chance that they could suffer serious harm?

Of course, most people can relate to this and intuitively recognize that it is unlikely they would not drop their little child off if they were of the mind that those odds existed.

At the very least, this kind of mental exercise allows people to position the definition of reasonable doubt to their own personal affairs, and it also allows people to gauge (calibrate) how high the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard truly is.

Now, I do not know about you, but if the odds were 1 out of a 100 that my child might suffer serious harm (a 99% degree of certainty that they would not suffer harm), not only would I not drop my child off, I would not drop my dog off either!!

 

[lin]

Amongst other sources, strong first-hand sources, such as talking with a large number of jurors and/or potential jurors over the last fifty years and watching and assessing deliberations in at least hundreds of mock trials.

One thing that became quite clear to me a long time ago is that the degree of uncertainty rises as the education of jurors (or potential jurors) rises.

You wrote: "Amongst other sources" Please cite the "other sources" and thank you for sharing your opinion based on your chats with some jurors/potential jurors.

I agree that at times a higher level of education can be more of a hindrance than a help. But that's another discussion for another thread.

 

[lin]

You're welcome.

The NY Times published an article that well summarized the Court's finding in Victor v. Nebraska, which generated significant discussion in the major medias back in 1994. That article distilled the Court's ruling and opinion down for those outside the legal profession. It still can be read via the following link.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cri09.htm

Although known as the newspaper of record, well... that higher education thing and all...

 

[lin]

I never said it was the law.

I absolutely agree that all criminal courts understand the subjective nature that clearly exists for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, courts like it this way; they prefer the vagueness and ambiguity.

Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding here that it is not the law as you know it. Many of your posts seemed to indicate the opposite, imo.

 

[lin]

Maybe this is a good definition.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

Leave out the "without hesitation" and I think you've nailed it. There is nothing wrong with hesitation and it's covered in Victor. Hesitation does not equate reasonable doubt. One would likely hesitate prior to any major decision, such as marriage, buying a home, taking away another's liberty or even life... If one can come to a firm decision, with or without hesitation, seems to be what the courts are trying to show as explaining reasonable doubt. On the other hand, if one continually hesitates or vacillates, then it is not a firm conviction that the correct decision is being made and in a criminal trial, one must acquit.

 

[lin]

That is the definition that most states used to template the review of their defintion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt after the Supreme Court's ruling in Victor v. Nebraska.

I have posted elsewhere that in performing this review and rewrite, the template that most, if not all, states used to create their new model for reasonable doubt was: "The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty."

While no state ended up with the above as their new model definition for reasonable doubt, states did freely extract from it. But, basically, across our fifty states, there are now over forty different definitions of reasonable doubt.

Still, if you look at the above template definition, it comes across very clearly. So ask yourself this question: within the most important of your own affairs, what would constitute such a convincing character that you would be willing to act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your affairs? For example, would you drop your little child off in a situation where you thought there was 1 in a 100 chance that they could suffer serious harm?

Of course, most people can relate to this and intuitively recognize that it is unlikely they would not drop their little child off if they were of the mind that those odds existed.

At the very least, this kind of mental exercise allows people to position the definition of reasonable doubt to their own personal affairs, and it also allows people to gauge (calibrate) how high the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard truly is.

Now, I do not know about you, but if the odds were 1 out of a 100 that my child might suffer serious harm (a 99% degree of certainty that they would not suffer harm), not only would I not drop my child off, I would not drop my dog off either!!

According to Victor, the template is more likely Webster; 1850; cited above.

ETA: Just to clarify for everyone --- the United States Supreme Court does not control on the reasonable doubt standard in Florida. Indeed, in Victor it is repeated that they cannot control the state or rule on the state's instructions beyond whether they meet the Due Process Clause and whether a reasonable juror would understand their meaning. There are a lot of subtleties outside their purview.

 

[cecybeans]

That is the definition that most states used to template the review of their defintion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt after the Supreme Court's ruling in Victor v. Nebraska.

I have posted elsewhere that in performing this review and rewrite, the template that most, if not all, states used to create their new model for reasonable doubt was: "The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty."

While no state ended up with the above as their new model definition for reasonable doubt, states did freely extract from it. But, basically, across our fifty states, there are now over forty different definitions of reasonable doubt.

Still, if you look at the above template definition, it comes across very clearly. So ask yourself this question: within the most important of your own affairs, what would constitute such a convincing character that you would be willing to act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your affairs? For example, would you drop your little child off in a situation where you thought there was 1 in a 100 chance that they could suffer serious harm?

Of course, most people can relate to this and intuitively recognize that it is unlikely they would not drop their little child off if they were of the mind that those odds existed.

At the very least, this kind of mental exercise allows people to position the definition of reasonable doubt to their own personal affairs, and it also allows people to gauge (calibrate) how high the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard truly is.

Now, I do not know about you, but if the odds were 1 out of a 100 that my child might suffer serious harm (a 99% degree of certainty that they would not suffer harm), not only would I not drop my child off, I would not drop my dog off either!!

This may be true, but we tend to ignore other risks in favor of subjective prejudice, for example, the actual odds of getting into an auto accident versus an airline accident. I know many people who are afraid of flying but think nothing of jumping into a car, even though the odds of an accident are much higher with driving.

I still believe it would be hard to come up with a rubrik or quantifiable formula that would serve 12 jurors on a consensus of what "reasonable moral certainty" means to any specific group for that specific trial using that specific evidence - particularly since you say that the number of the group who agree on what constitutes moral certainty diminishes or decreases in relation to the increasing the size of the group. It is of course easier to reach a quantifiable consensus with a large sample, so that at least you have enough data for a bell curve, but I would think that would be a much harder standard to consistently apply to a smaller group of 12 jurors, each of whom may have wildly varying interpretations of the semantics of "reasonable moral certainty", as either a group of words or as individual words without any relationship to each other.

Trying to apply analytics is always a smart and reasonable attempt, but your study sample has to be large enough to make the results meaningful in any study, whether it is science or simple marketing. And you have to have a good handle on the wide variety of outside variables or influences. I just think that would be a bit hard to do with the current, small random sample type "peer jury" situation.

 

[aafromaa]

I've been reading through the latter part of this discussion and the following questions came to mind...

1) Why are we talking about the 40 different definition of reasonable doubt in all 50 states? Isn't the only one that matters in this case, the definition of reasonable doubt in FL?

2) Shouldn't a juror be 100% certain that he/she did not have a REASONABLE doubt to vote guilty? But can a juror be 100% sure there is no reasonable doubt but still be only 99% sure of guilt because of unreasonable doubt? And since that doubt is unreasonable and therefore unreasonable to require the state to prove the case beyond unreasonable doubt, wouldn't the juror be required to dismiss the unreasonable doubt, and vote guilty since there was no reasonable doubt?

3) Why does so much of the discussion in this thread pertain to premeditated murder? Did I miss something? Has the state ever suggested they would try to prove premeditated? Didn't they just charge murder in the 1st degree which does not require premeditation in FL? Even when the put the DP back on the table, they didn't suggest they could prove premeditation, did they?

 

[milliac]

This thread is way out of my league, but you have all peaked my interest. I'm really enjoying your debate, and makes me wonder if these type of debates occur during jury deliberations. Keep up the great work. I'm learning something new every day!

 

[Devon]

3) Why does so much of the discussion in this thread pertain to premeditated murder? Did I miss something? Has the state ever suggested they would try to prove premeditated? Didn't they just charge murder in the 1st degree which does not require premeditation in FL? Even when the put the DP back on the table, they didn't suggest they could prove premeditation, did they?

Snipped.

I haven't been part of this discussion (although I've followed it with interest) but I can answer your Q3:

KC is charged with premeditated murder -

THE RELEVANT STATUTE:

The 2008 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 782
HOMICIDE

View Entire Chapter

782.04 Murder.--

(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:

1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES....HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0782->Section 04#0782.04

FROM THE INDICTMENT:

The Grand Jurors of the County of Orange, duly called, impaneled and sworn to inquire and true presentment make in and for the body of the Count of Orange, upon their oaths do present that CASEY MARIE ANTHONY, between the 15h day of June 2008 and the 16th day of July 2008, in said County and State, did, in violation of Florida Statute 782.04 (1)(a)(1), from a premeditated design to effect the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANYHONY, a human being, unlawfully kill CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.

 

[Wudge]

I've been reading through the latter part of this discussion and the following questions came to mind...

1) Why are we talking about the 40 different definition of reasonable doubt in all 50 states? Isn't the only one that matters in this case, the definition of reasonable doubt in FL?

2) Shouldn't a juror be 100% certain that he/she did not have a REASONABLE doubt to vote guilty? But can a juror be 100% sure there is no reasonable doubt but still be only 99% sure of guilt because of unreasonable doubt? And since that doubt is unreasonable and therefore unreasonable to require the state to prove the case beyond unreasonable doubt, wouldn't the juror be required to dismiss the unreasonable doubt, and vote guilty since there was no reasonable doubt?

3) Why does so much of the discussion in this thread pertain to premeditated murder? Did I miss something? Has the state ever suggested they would try to prove premeditated? Didn't they just charge murder in the 1st degree which does not require premeditation in FL? Even when the put the DP back on the table, they didn't suggest they could prove premeditation, did they?

Many different definitions of reasonable doubt exist at the state level, because each state is free to set their own definition, and they do just that.

Regarding your question on premediated murder, Casey is so charged.

 

[Wudge]

This may be true, but we tend to ignore other risks in favor of subjective prejudice, for example, the actual odds of getting into an auto accident versus an airline accident. I know many people who are afraid of flying but think nothing of jumping into a car, even though the odds of an accident are much higher with driving.

I still believe it would be hard to come up with a rubrik or quantifiable formula that would serve 12 jurors on a consensus of what "reasonable moral certainty" means to any specific group for that specific trial using that specific evidence - particularly since you say that the number of the group who agree on what constitutes moral certainty diminishes or decreases in relation to the increasing the size of the group. It is of course easier to reach a quantifiable consensus with a large sample, so that at least you have enough data for a bell curve, but I would think that would be a much harder standard to consistently apply to a smaller group of 12 jurors, each of whom may have wildly varying interpretations of the semantics of "reasonable moral certainty", as either a group of words or as individual words without any relationship to each other.

Trying to apply analytics is always a smart and reasonable attempt, but your study sample has to be large enough to make the results meaningful in any study, whether it is science or simple marketing. And you have to have a good handle on the wide variety of outside variables or influences. I just think that would be a bit hard to do with the current, small random sample type "peer jury" situation.

My post intended to show that proof beyond a reasonable doubt (our legal hurdle) represents a level of certainty in excess of 99% -- the corresponding intended error rate being less than 1%. This leads to the next question in Casey's case, which is: does the best evidence of premeditation produce a level of certainty in excess of 99%? I have always held that it does not. However, per the poll on another thread, roughly 80% of the posters who respnded hold that it does.

Hopefully, they will reflect on the validity and quality of their assessment.

 

[Manny]

I bet they will use Jury consultants on both sides.

 

[MissJames]

My post intended to show that proof beyond a reasonable doubt (our legal hurdle) represents a level of certainty in excess of 99% -- the corresponding intended error rate being less than 1%. This leads to the next question in Casey's case, which is: does the best evidence of premeditation produce a level of certainty in excess of 99%? I have always held that it does not. However, per the poll on another thread, roughly 80% of the posters who respnded hold that it does.

Hopefully, they will reflect on the validity and quality of their assessment.

BBM
I don't feel the need to,but thanks.

 

[Tuba]

Never mind jurors, on this thread the value of common sense and subjective reasoning is in disrepute. However, in a world of precise calibrations relative to guilt or innocence, we would find not perfect people but bots. Reasonable, as in the reasonable man standard, underpins not only criminal law but all of law. If jurors cannot trust the soundness or validity of their reasoning, they should not be sitting no matter which consultant finds them fit and suitable to serve.

If I were considering whether to drop off my child at a location and in a given situation, I would not be figuring odds. I would imagine every possibility inspiration lent me and then recognise that other possibilities unknown and sometimes unfriendly also exist. Much of it would come down to whether I trusted the supervision. And that, of course, is a human element.

 

[JBean]

My post intended to show that proof beyond a reasonable doubt (our legal hurdle) represents a level of certainty in excess of 99% -- the corresponding intended error rate being less than 1%. This leads to the next question in Casey's case, which is: does the best evidence of premeditation produce a level of certainty in excess of 99%? I have always held that it does not. However, per the poll on another thread, roughly 80% of the posters who respnded hold that it does.

Hopefully, they will reflect on the validity and quality of their assessment.

Count me in the 20% . I am not convinced of premeditation at this point.
Admittedly I have not seen all the evidence nor have I analyzed what i have seen. But to date, I do not see enough for premed. With that said, I would guess the SA will have a story to tell, supported by the existing evidence that will possibly sway the the last 20% to an excess of 99% certainty. Part of putting on a good CIC.

 

[Marina2]

I have to admit that I would not drop my child off somewhere if the level of certainty I had of his or her safety were the same as the level of certainty I have that KC commited premeditated murder of Caylee. Using this standard, I would acquit her of this charge with the evidence I know of now. I would, however, drop my child off somewhere with the certainty of safety being the same as I have of KC's involvement somehow in Caylee's death.

I think the level of certainty with respect to the safety of one's child probably does match the legal hurdle necessary to convict. Certainly, many guilty as charged can go free using this standard but that's how our system of justice is set up. Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent be convicted and all that. That's how justice in America is supposed to work. Right or wrong, it is what it is. I think in our modern world we are moving away from that and the opposite is true. The presumption of innocence is an endangered species, so to speak. More and more, defendants are entering the courtroom with the presumption of guilt, especially in the last ten years. The internet and news happening in real time, along with publishing power of virtually anyone with access, contribute to this. We know, or think we know, so much more about defendants than in the past.

KC will enter the courtroom with the presumption of guilt. She will be convicted by a jury of her peers whether any evidence other than we've seen is added and in spite of any defense she puts forth. Do I think the jury will correctly judge KC? Yes, I believe that she's guilty of some form of murder with only the evidence I've seen thus far. If I were a jury member, I wouldn't be using a standard equal to the certainty of my child's safety and neither will they. I'll be grateful if she spends all of the rest of her days behind bars. But, I will acknowledge that it can and may happen without the jury et al, following all the rules within our system. I think that is what the "devil's advocates" are really arguing. Not KC's guilt or innocence but that she may be convicted in spite of the rules in place meant to assure that "ten guilty men go free rather than one innocent be convicted". As I said earlier, right or wrong, that's how it's meant to be. It's just so hard, no matter how much we believe and take pride in our freedoms, to let a guilty man walk in the interest of this principal.

 

[lin]

This may be true, but we tend to ignore other risks in favor of subjective prejudice, for example, the actual odds of getting into an auto accident versus an airline accident. I know many people who are afraid of flying but think nothing of jumping into a car, even though the odds of an accident are much higher with driving.

I still believe it would be hard to come up with a rubrik or quantifiable formula that would serve 12 jurors on a consensus of what "reasonable moral certainty" means to any specific group for that specific trial using that specific evidence - particularly since you say that the number of the group who agree on what constitutes moral certainty diminishes or decreases in relation to the increasing the size of the group. It is of course easier to reach a quantifiable consensus with a large sample, so that at least you have enough data for a bell curve, but I would think that would be a much harder standard to consistently apply to a smaller group of 12 jurors, each of whom may have wildly varying interpretations of the semantics of "reasonable moral certainty", as either a group of words or as individual words without any relationship to each other.

Trying to apply analytics is always a smart and reasonable attempt, but your study sample has to be large enough to make the results meaningful in any study, whether it is science or simple marketing. And you have to have a good handle on the wide variety of outside variables or influences. I just think that would be a bit hard to do with the current, small random sample type "peer jury" situation.

Always a fan of your posts, cecybeans.

I would add to your excellent analysis in this and other posts in this thread that not only can the sampling be flawed but the nature of the question can and does often skew the results.

Did the jurors with whom Wudge discussed the method used to reach a verdict automatically start explaining using numerical calibrations? Or did Wudge possibly inadvertantly set them on that path when in reality, numerical percentages were not really used by the jurors at all when deliberating? Was this a common ground type speak, a way of trying to define something that is difficult even for the courts to reduce to words, or is that what the jurors actually used in deliberation?

Wudge, in my view, seems to have scientific leanings that many, if not most, jurors may not share. Could this have affected the informal polling that was done?

I'll be very interested to read the accounts of Wudge and the other sources Wudge mentioned regarding the methods used in their discussions with jurors.