Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[yolorado]

No. "Beyond a reasonable doubt," is the standard for the scale tip to "not guilty." Not, "a small feather of reasonable doubt."

There is always going to be a "sliver" of doubt. Nothing in life, or in perception is certain. That's why the law stipulates "reasonable doubt."

Exactly, when all is said and done in the courtroom, the jury doesn't go into the jury room stew over terms in legal books..."99% percent of this, this or that," "habeus ridiculousness" .... They read the instructions the judge gave them, and they do their best to follow them. They consider the whole of the case that was presented to them and the judge's instructions, bringing their personalities, character and life experience to bear. Then, they make a decision.

 

[MissJames]

I've talked to more than a few people who equate proof beyond a reasonable doubt to be as low as 51% -- reasonable in their mind equates to more likely than not. More than a few other people equate it to be far above 99%, with which I agree. To open a such discussion, I believe the standard for Ivory soap represents a decent starting point.

Unless they discussed it during deliberations, I would never expect a jury of twelve lay people to closely agree on a percentage (much less an exact percentage) of certainty for what "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" represents. That's the core problem. Significant to huge variations will almost certainly exist across twelve lay jurors who blindly go forth to render a verdict without first benchmarking the degree of certainty.A process and standard that allows for humongously wide interpretation and options is no standard at all.

BBM
But it's not blindly,Wudge.They have listened to boths sides opening arguments,to both sides closing arguments,to all the evidence and experts from both sides.They are then given jury instructions by the judge.There are opportunities during deliberations to ask the judge questions and for clarifications under the law.They listen to each other as they deliberate.
There is nothing blind about it.

 

[Brini]

I've talked to more than a few people who equate proof beyond a reasonable doubt to be as low as 51% -- reasonable in their mind equates to more likely than not. More than a few other people equate it to be far above 99%, with which I agree. To open a such discussion, I believe the standard for Ivory soap represents a decent starting point.

Unless they discussed it during deliberations, I would never expect a jury of twelve lay people to closely agree on a percentage (much less an exact percentage) of certainty for what "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" represents. That's the core problem. Significant to huge variations will almost certainly exist across twelve lay jurors who blindly go forth to render a verdict without first benchmarking the degree of certainty.

A process and standard that allows for humongously wide interpretation and options is no standard at all.

The composition of Ivory soap is quantifiable by lab analysis. Court evidence is not.

You know, of course, that citizens may write and submit bills to Congress.

I'm not being snarky, this is a real suggestion.

It might be tough to codify your standards for quantification and qualification. But, if you really want change, you will find a way to do it.

 

[Brini]

BBM

Ya know, Brini, I think this is going to be the most difficult hurdle for the defense to get across. Assuming they seat a jury of 12 normal minded people, many of whom will be parents, the defense will argue against every piece of evidense that the pros puts out there. Even if they could argue away her lies, the smell of death, the partying, the tattoo, the stealing, they will have a very hard time arguing away the 31 days. I cannot imagine the circumstance in which they convince 12 people that this was reasonable. JMO.

Yep! The 31 days and the decomp in the car.

Others have been convicted on far less evidence.

My guess is that if JB had what he says he has-- an exonerating explanation, he'd already have had KC out. As has happened with other wrongly incarcerated people.

 

[Marina2]

"10 guilty go free rather than yada yada"
The only problem with this is that the prosecutor has already allowed the potential 10 guilty go free, by not even bringing charges in the first place
People forget that many many cases never go to court to begin with because the prosecutor tends to bring cases she/he feels sure about winning .
I personally do not believe at all that Now Days there is a presumption of guilt in the courtroom.
I think folks have unreasonable doubt in many cases.
Uh, and there in lies the rub, cause they wouldn't be so unreasonable if it was THEIR LOVED ONE THAT WAS MURDERED OR WHATEVER.
I have a passion about the miscarriage of justice that takes place every day in and out of our courtrooms, letting the guilty go free so they can victimize others again and again.

In regards to the text I bolded in your post:
By the same token, what if you or a family member are wrongly accused and the evidence points to your guilt? How would you feel then about reasonable doubt, high burden of proof, etc? Do you feel the presumption of innocence in that courtroom when all fingers are pointing at you or a family member?

I get from your post that you have a problem with the ten guilty men thing. Like it or not, this premise is the basis of what presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt is built upon. It's because of the "ten guilty go free rather than yada yada" that prosecutors are held to such a high burden of proof and that defendants are presumed innocent when cases are brought to trial. I'm not indifferent to the fact that guilty people sometimes go free. It frustrates and scares me when the likes of OJ are acquitted but what is the solution? Do you think we should lower the burden of proof, change the rules of evidence, and do away with unanimous verdicts? That's the only solution I see that will result in more guilty being convicted. Are you ok with more innocents being convicted along with them?

 

[Brini]

Exactly, when all is said and done in the courtroom, the jury doesn't go into the jury room stew over terms in legal books..."99% percent of this, this or that," "habeus ridiculousness" .... They read the instructions the judge gave them, and they do their best to follow them. They consider the whole of the case that was presented to them and the judge's instructions, bringing their personalities, character and life experience to bear. Then, they make a decision.

Yes, and that is what was intended, when the legal codes wear/are written. That 12 reasonable people from off the street can and should be able to make those decisions. Just like reasonable people should be able to make any OTHER legal decision that adults usually make.

It's that way in every state and every industrialized country in the world.

And, again, wrong convictions can be overturned at at two levels of appeal.

Though, I understand that German courts convict or acquit on a simple majority.

 

[flyonsweetangel]

BBM
But it's not blindly,Wudge.They have listened to boths sides opening arguments,to both sides closing arguments,to all the evidence and experts from both sides.They are then given jury instructions by the judge.There are opportunities during deliberations to ask the judge questions and for clarifications under the law.They listen to each other as they deliberate.
There is nothing blind about it.

Exactly and if there are any questions they are allowed access to the evidence brought forthwith ..... Thanks Miss James a great explanation in simple language.....

 

[Marina2]

Neutralizing strategies for both prosecution and defense aside, I find it amazing that ANY case would include inculpatory evidence that even met much less exceeded 99% certainty in toto. Even evidence not-considered circumstantial, like eyewitnesses or perhaps very clear surveillance films are always subject to some sort of question (whether it's ultimately that reasonable or not).

I still also find it highly improbable to see how a small sample of people can look at the same piece of evidence and agree on the exact same percentage of certainty it represents. I'm sure many of our friends in the psychological, sociological or neurological sciences (not to mention various semanticians, linguists or certain marketing analytics types) would find that possibility not only astonishing but unrealistic as well and I would love to hear how some of these professionals view the general feasibility of entire subject or argument.

Months ago this discussion came up and I felt the same as you. I was looking at the percentage thing in a concrete way. Any and all evidence can be disputed to a 1% level of uncertainty. But, when I began to look at it in an abstract or subjective way and relate that to a level of certainty, it became clearer.

Take the child safety, 1 out of 100 odds that your child will meet with danger situation. Suppose that as you walk your child into daycare a person approaches you and says "I have information that there is a 1 out of a hundred chance that a homicidal maniac will come here today and kill everyone inside" Now consider the level of uncertainty in your mind that your child will be safe in this situation. You know what this doubt feels like to you. You have a reasonable doubt that your child will be safe in this situation. If you feel this same level of uncertainty in the guilt of the defendant then you should acquit.

From there, consider that there is a number that this person could give you wherein you would decide to go ahead and drop your child off at the daycare. What is this number for you? At what point do you feel certain your child is safe. When does it become unreasonable to you that your child will meet with danger? This level of certainty is what is required for you to convict.

It may be that the percentages were not brought into the discussion in this vein but it's the only way I can reconcile it with reasonable doubt, matters most important to you, level of certainty and such.

 

[Wudge]

Neutralizing strategies for both prosecution and defense aside, I find it amazing that ANY case would include inculpatory evidence that even met much less exceeded 99% certainty in toto. Even evidence not-considered circumstantial, like eyewitnesses or perhaps very clear surveillance films are always subject to some sort of question (whether it's ultimately that reasonable or not).

I still also find it highly improbable to see how a small sample of people can look at the same piece of evidence and agree on the exact same percentage of certainty it represents. I'm sure many of our friends in the psychological, sociological or neurological sciences (not to mention various semanticians, linguists or certain marketing analytics types) would find that possibility not only astonishing but unrealistic as well and I would love to hear how some of these professionals view the general feasibility of entire subject or argument.

Cecybeans, I am responding to your post a second time, because two things stood out to me, and I wanted to address them separately.

I do agree that many individual items of inculpatory evidence that prosecutors ask lay jurors to use to support a verdict of "guilty" might well not represent a level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that equals or exceeds 99%. However, if 99% is an appropriate benchmark for evidence proving a level of certainty, jurors cannot add an item of inculpatory evidence with a 97% certainty rating to another item of inculpatory evidence with a 90% certainty rating and claim that these two items of evidence hurdle the established benchmark of 99%. You can not add evidence coefficients.

The totality of evidence phrase is widely misunderstood. If, as in the above example, the level of certainty benchmark were to be set at 99%, then the only inculpatory evidence that can go into a totality of evidence bucket are individual items of evidence that possess a certainty rating of 99% or better. As such and again drawing from the above example, neither the 97% item of inculpatory evidence nor the 90% item of inculpatory could be placed in a totality of evidence bucket that could be used to support a verdict of "guilty".

 

[Wudge]

BBM
But it's not blindly,Wudge.They have listened to boths sides opening arguments,to both sides closing arguments,to all the evidence and experts from both sides.They are then given jury instructions by the judge.There are opportunities during deliberations to ask the judge questions and for clarifications under the law.They listen to each other as they deliberate.
There is nothing blind about it.

My post referred to a jury that neglected to benchmark a level of certainty for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

[Brini]

Cecybeans, I am responding to your post a second time, because two things stood out to me, and I wanted to address them separately.

I do agree that many individual items of inculpatory evidence that prosecutors ask lay jurors to use to support a verdict of "guilty" might well not represent a level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that equals or exceeds 99%. However, if 99% is an appropriate benchmark for evidence proving a level of certainty, jurors cannot add an item of inculpatory evidence with 97% certainty rating to another item of inculpatory evidence with a 90% certainty rating and claim that these two items of evidence hurdle the established benchmark of 99%. You can not add evidence coefficients.

The totality of evidence phrase is widely misunderstood. If, as in the above example, the level of certainty benchmark were to be set at 99%, then the only inculpatory evidence that can go into a totality of evidence bucket are individual items of evidence that possess a certainty rating of 99% or better. As such and again drawing from the above example, neither the 97% item of inculpatory evidence nor the 90% item of inculpatory could be placed in totality of evidence bucket that could be used to support a verdict of "guilty".

That brings up three issues:

1) How do you, personally, specifically quantify the percentage of certainty of a given piece of evidence? What are the factors and determinants?

What if I say 99%, you opine 97%, and Miss James says 89%?

2) That would pretty much eliminate circumstantial evidence, which is a gestalt, more than individual pieces.

3) That would give a good deal more weight to eyewitness evidence, which is thought to be very unreliable. A LOT of wrong convictions have been based on eyewitness testimony. This as evidenced by the releases, after a number of years of incarceration, of innocents secondary to current DNA technologies.

 

[Intermezzo]

Bolded part by me- "Proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt".



Main Entry: rea·son·able
Pronunciation: \ˈrēz-nə-bəl, ˈrē-zən-ə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a: being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b: not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c: moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d: inexpensive
2 a: having the faculty of reason b: possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man>

This is not a hard concept to grasp. Reasonable. Quite simple in my mind. 31 days. Pretty much sums it up for me. The wild goose chase to Universal KC took LE on. The not one ounce, not one sentence, of help offered to LE to assist LE from KC to help find Caylee. The fact KC never mentions to one single friend, especially her live in lover at the time, her child was missing. There in and of itself is "reasonable doubt" for me without any hard scientific evidence.

I agree with your post.
31 days... she purposefully didn't report her child missing..that alone was a RED FLAG and cast doubt in my mind.

 

[Brini]

My post referred to a jury that neglected to benchmark a level of certainty for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

That is the judge's job, in his/her instructions to the jury-- to make clear what reasonable doubt is.

The jury is not required to set a "benchmark" for reasonable doubt. And, I've never see a percentage in a legal code or jury instructions.

 

[MissJames]

The composition of Ivory soap is quantifiable by lab analysis. Court evidence is not.

You know, of course, that citizens may write and submit bills to Congress.

I'm not being snarky, this is a real suggestion.

It might be tough to codify your standards for quantification and qualification. But, if you really want change, you will find a way to do it.

Hah! I went to DC last week to speak to Congressmen/woman and the health staffers about a bill for efficient programs for children who are medically complex. You are right ,Brini. If you want something changed go to the source.I'm as ordinary a citizen as you can get,but they listened! It was just me and the manager of the program we had here. What a learning experience.I still have the blisters on my feet.Lot's of walking on the Hill.

 

[marspiter]

Exactly, when all is said and done in the courtroom, the jury doesn't go into the jury room stew over terms in legal books..."99% percent of this, this or that," "habeus ridiculousness" .... They read the instructions the judge gave them, and they do their best to follow them. They consider the whole of the case that was presented to them and the judge's instructions, bringing their personalities, character and life experience to bear. Then, they make a decision.

Yes exactly.

Ok some points. Circumstantial evidence can be used and can be the only evidence used to obtain a conviction. The totality of the circumstantial evidence is looked at and weighed. Yes defense attorneys will pick apart evidence one item at a time. That however is a defense tactic (smoke and mirrors) and not the reality of how a juror will look at it or should look it. I have no idea why some think this is not true. The state can convict with only circumstantial evidence! Plain and simple not really open for debate. If its not true then I would like to see the case evidence to prove it untrue. Show me case law that says a person can not be convicted on circumstantial evidence or the appeals case that over turns People v. Scott.

Working in some of the capacities I have I can assure you eyewitness testimony is great for that Perry Mason moment in court where the witness points to the person in the court room and says that's the person right there. However eyewitness testimony is seriously flawed. First you are relaying on someone's memory and by the time most trials start that memory is not what it was moments after the incident. Also eyewitnesses can be easily confused, flustered, and made to look like fools and the stand. I would venture to guess that most lawyers cringe when the other side does their cross against a non "expert" witness. I personally would take lots of circumstantial evidence over an eyewitness any day.

Reasonable Doubt: One does not have to have complete irrefutable proof for a conviction. Maybe in some Utopian society where the judge and jury is omnipotent and the evidence is 100 percent and you are assured the person is 100 percent guilty times infinity. That's not the real world however. Further more speaking of percentages. There is no such thing as percentages of "reasonableness". If a value was ever placed by a judge in the instructions it would undermine the entire point. The jury of ones piers is to look at and evaluate the evidence presented to them and based on that evidence one is to use their mental reasoning to establish guilt. If after weighing the evidence that person determines in their mind that the state didn't present enough evidence and they have doubt in their mind that weighs upon them in their conviction they are to render a not guilty verdict. If after they weigh the evidence and they determine in there mind that yes based on the evidence presented and their ability to use reason in examining that evidence the juror still "feels" they are guilty the juror renders a guilty verdict.

I think what tricks people up is that reasonable doubt is left up to some interpretation. There is no magic formula involving percentages or some grand mathematical computation that can be used to establish guilt. If so we would have computers doing it. Plug in evidence A into slot B, get verdict. Done plain, simple, and easy. Our courts don't work that way. It is left up to the jurors to decide. They are allowed to determine for themselves if the evidence establishes guilt. They are not required to perform calculus to do so. They are allowed to use their own reasoning to weigh the evidence, and yes they are allowed to enter a guilty verdict even if they have doubts. They must determine if that doubt out weighs their reasoning of the evidence. I guess I just don't see why that is hard to understand.

 

[MissJames]

My post referred to a jury that neglected to benchmark a level of certainty for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

I just reread your post and it does not seem to refer to any particular jury.

 

[Intermezzo]

No. Caylee was 2 years old, easily restrained. And it's been brought up, KC could have sat on her or grabbed her and held her in a firm hold from behind.

BBM
I agree with your comment.

 

[Intermezzo]

We may not have evidence that they were not either. We have not yet seen all of the items that were found with the body. Much has been made about how unusual it was that the duct tape remained on the skull, some of which may have been due to the fact that it was stuck to the hair that did not separate from the skull and helped hold the duct tape in place.

If other pieces of duct tape (or string, cloth, or other, materials) were used to bind her hands or feet, it is very likely they fell away from the body after it skeletonized and may have shifted in location away from the body. I am looking forward to the experts' interpretation of what was found at the crime scene at trial because it's really difficult and frustratring for us to intelligently speculate not having all the facts and their specialized knowledge.

BBM
I have speculated that as well and am also looking forward to the interpretations of the experts.

 

[Wudge]

I just reread your post and it does not seem to refer to any particular jury.

As in "twelve lay jurors who blindly go forth to render a verdict without first benchmarking the degree of certainty."

 

[Intermezzo]

Actually I'm just happy to have the FL Supreme Court agree with me.There is no reasonable explanation for placing duct tape over a dead persons mouth. Not to stem decomp,not to fake a kidnapping.It's to shut them up or cause them to sufficate.
It can't be ignored that Caylee was only 2 and small.Her hands could have been held away from the tape.It's what we parents often do while trying to keep our kids from touching something dangerous.KC is a different sort of mom.:furious:
I can't play a lawyer and I never took debate.I'm just a mom,but I do have common sense.I believe the same common sense the jury will use while deciding what is reasonable.

BBM
Totally agree.