Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[lin]

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?

1. I agree with you and that's why the Florida standard jury instructions have been posted repeatedly by Marspiter and others. However, Wudge did bring up a federal case that has been discussed because of the instruction contained therein regarding a definition of reasonable doubt. Last night I had the same thought as you and edited a post to add that while helpful, that decision does not control.

2. A lot of the discussion here has been about whether these percentages, 100%, 99% or whatever, can ever have any real meaning when making these decisions. I see what you're trying to say here is much different than trying to numerically quantify a verdict. To borrow cecybeans' apples and oranges for a moment, there is a legal certainty, which jurors are well instructed about. This can be very different from a personal certainty, depending on the personality of the juror. But legally, it's not really a percentage thing: It's a yes or no thing.

Did the prosecution prove each of the necessary elements? Yes or no.

Does the juror have a reasonable doubt? Yes or no.

If the answers to these questions are Yes and then no, according to the law, it follows that the juror is 100% compelled to vote for conviction. Even if they have a "feeling" or if the defendant reminds them of a niece or nephew, or even if they don't want to believe the event even happened; that people could really do such things. Even if they wear a tinfoil hat at home and believe it's possible that aliens from Mars could have perpetrated the act, if there was no evidence presented to support this theory, legally they are required to convict.

Hope this makes sense to you; did my best to explain my understanding of this legal process.

3. I believe it was legally premeditated but that's another discussion thread.

 

[lin]

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.

I still disagree that these things are numerically quantified or that they even can be. The goal is always 100% accuracy. Our founders and all that have come after them in a position to effect change have determined the best way to handle these matters is with common sense rather than numerical probabilities. It's not a %, it is a yes or no, as previously stated.

Question: You've made us aware of your interviews with jurors but have you ever actually been a juror? TIA

 

[lin]

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.

Well done, well done. Particularly applaud your analogy. We can never be 100% or even 90% certain that our children will be safe and well cared for in any situation. However, what we instinctively do is look at the evidence we have and we determine whether or not we have a reasonable doubt as to their physical and emotional safety.

We meet the teacher, research the school, etc. If we end up without a reasonable doubt, then the child gets dropped off at school. Sure it's possible that the teacher is a psycopath and will harm our child. We can't be 100% sure. But based on the background checks done by the school and our research, we have seen no evidence to support that possibility and therefore do not think it reasonable to assume such a thing about a charming and well regarded teacher.

 

[lin]

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.

You may be correct and if it turns out that way, it will be the failing of her defense team, not of the system, imo.

Robert Blake, OJ and other juries are a testament to the effectiveness of voire dire, jury instructions and how seriously juries take their responsibilities. I sincerely believe that if I were on the jury, I could and would vote to acquit if the state did not prove each element or if the defense was able to raise a reasonable doubt in my mind as to KC's guilt, despite my personal strong feelings to the contrary.

I believe that those who have followed the case and seen/read/heard the evidence thus far in bits and pieces are much more able to be concerned that there isn't "enough" evidence yet. The jurors, however, will be presented with a huge mountain of evidence and will be required to consider all of it in the hours, days and/or weeks it takes to come to their verdict. They will not have the time to be as jaded as are some of us.

If there's not a thread already, there should be a thread entitled, "The evidence against KC." I think if we had it all in one thread, it would be very compelling to anyone reading it from start to finish. It should be complete with the arguments against any piece of evidence, as we are able to formulate them based on the knowledge at hand.

 

[Themis]

<sigh> If there is a doubt being considered the question is whether or not that doubt is reasonable. Reasonable or not; like pregnant or not. There are no mathmatical percentages at all. There is no requirement for 99% certain. How would one ever know that? Is there going to be a poll by Reuters? "In 99% of the people polled, ... ." No. If the evidence presented could result in two different scenarios, the question is which of them, either, both or neither, are reasonable. If they are both reasonable, then acquit because the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt is not met. If the one supporting conviction is reasonable but the one supporting acquittal is not reasonable; then convict. If the one supporting conviction is not reasonable but the one supporting acquittal is reasonable; that's easy, acquit. If neither are reasonable, then again, acquit because the standard was not met because the presumption of innocence kicks in and the prosecution did not meet their burden of rebutting the presumption. No numbers involved. It is not a 51% preponderance of the evidence, though. It is paying attention to those serious matters of the same kind a person would if they had a fiduciary duty as a trustee. These are serious matters and the gravity of the situation demands serious attention and evidence at that level, not guesses or pure speculation. However, if there are solid observations from which a jury can draw valid conclusions, then those things also can be used. Sometimes the absence of evidence that should have been there can also be considered as long as there is no burden placed on defense to produce evidence.

 

[Brini]

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

Nor do I.

 

[RR0004]

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.

...and I blame that on some people talking down to the "average" juror. I have nothing against criminal defense attorneys...I grew up in the same home as one...but what I am against is a system that allows money to buy a "not guilty" verdict. So let's pull out all the stops and get the guys in who can somehow "measure" someone's intelligence? Just an FYI...my father had a genius IQ which basically allowed him to skip right out of school. He had average grades because he never had a need to study...and chose to become a criminal attorney because he scored the best in that area. And no matter how much education and "smarts" he had, he did not do well in most social circles 'cause he believed he was better and smarter than most. I find offense in anyone declaring someone is deemed to be of average intelligence-or better yet, not capable of weighing all the evidence at trial- because they haven't had the opportunity to receive a higher education. My mother never went to college, but she sure could run circles around my father in the "smarts" and "common sense" departments.

 

[Brini]

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.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[JBean]

Can only speak for myself, but I am using percentages in a figurative sense to quantify certainty.
If I say I am 99% sure about something it just means I am pretty sure about it, but am leaving a tiny margin for error.
If I say I am 51% sure, I am on the fence but leaning a little to one side.

Not suggesting there is actually a mathematical formula to determine percentage of certainty, but rather it is just another subjective variable that fluctuates from one individual to another. Sort of like rating pain from a 1 to a 10. A 6 to me might be a 10 to another.

 

[lin]

<sigh> If there is a doubt being considered the question is whether or not that doubt is reasonable. Reasonable or not; like pregnant or not. There are no mathmatical percentages at all. There is no requirement for 99% certain. How would one ever know that? Is there going to be a poll by Reuters? "In 99% of the people polled, ... ." No. If the evidence presented could result in two different scenarios, the question is which of them, either, both or neither, are reasonable. If they are both reasonable, then acquit because the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt is not met. If the one supporting conviction is reasonable but the one supporting acquittal is not reasonable; then convict. If the one supporting conviction is not reasonable but the one supporting acquittal is reasonable; that's easy, acquit. If neither are reasonable, then again, acquit because the standard was not met because the presumption of innocence kicks in and the prosecution did not meet their burden of rebutting the presumption. No numbers involved. It is not a 51% preponderance of the evidence, though. It is paying attention to those serious matters of the same kind a person would if they had a fiduciary duty as a trustee. These are serious matters and the gravity of the situation demands serious attention and evidence at that level, not guesses or pure speculation. However, if there are solid observations from which a jury can draw valid conclusions, then those things also can be used. Sometimes the absence of evidence that should have been there can also be considered as long as there is no burden placed on defense to produce evidence.

100% agree. <chuckle>

 

[RR0004]

Can only speak for myself, but I am using percentages in a figurative sense to quantify certainty.
If I say I am 99% sure about something it just means I am pretty sure about it, but am leaving a tiny margin for error.
If I say I am 51% sure, I am on the fence but leaning a little to one side.

Not suggesting there is actually a mathematical formula to determine percentage of certainty, but rather it is just another subjective variable that fluctuates from one individual to another. Sort of like rating pain from a 1 to a 10. A 6 to me might be a 10 to another.

Exactly..."certainty" is very subjective.

 

[Brini]

1. I agree with you and that's why the Florida standard jury instructions have been posted repeatedly by Marspiter and others. However, Wudge did bring up a federal case that has been discussed because of the instruction contained therein regarding a definition of reasonable doubt. Last night I had the same thought as you and edited a post to add that while helpful, that decision does not control.

2. A lot of the discussion here has been about whether these percentages, 100%, 99% or whatever, can ever have any real meaning when making these decisions. I see what you're trying to say here is much different than trying to numerically quantify a verdict. To borrow cecybeans' apples and oranges for a moment, there is a legal certainty, which jurors are well instructed about. This can be very different from a personal certainty, depending on the personality of the juror. But legally, it's not really a percentage thing: It's a yes or no thing.

Did the prosecution prove each of the necessary elements? Yes or no.

Does the juror have a reasonable doubt? Yes or no.

If the answers to these questions are Yes and then no, according to the law, it follows that the juror is 100% compelled to vote for conviction. Even if they have a "feeling" or if the defendant reminds them of a niece or nephew, or even if they don't want to believe the event even happened; that people could really do such things. Even if they wear a tinfoil hat at home and believe it's possible that aliens from Mars could have perpetrated the act, if there was no evidence presented to support this theory, legally they are required to convict.

Hope this makes sense to you; did my best to explain my understanding of this legal process.

3. I believe it was legally premeditated but that's another discussion thread.

Or, the opposite.

On one jury, we had a strong personal conviction that the parties were guilty of a few things.

But, we derived a legal certainty the the defendant did not commit the crime for which he was charged (based on circumstantial evidence) we correctly voted not guilty.

 

[Brini]

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.

Methodology would be another factor.

How were the questions written, for instance? How was the sample drawn? From which court systems (demographics)?

 

[Brini]

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.

And, also the validity and quality of yours.

 

[Brini]

<sigh> If there is a doubt being considered the question is whether or not that doubt is reasonable. Reasonable or not; like pregnant or not. There are no mathmatical percentages at all. There is no requirement for 99% certain. How would one ever know that? Is there going to be a poll by Reuters? "In 99% of the people polled, ... ." No. If the evidence presented could result in two different scenarios, the question is which of them, either, both or neither, are reasonable. If they are both reasonable, then acquit because the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt is not met. If the one supporting conviction is reasonable but the one supporting acquittal is not reasonable; then convict. If the one supporting conviction is not reasonable but the one supporting acquittal is reasonable; that's easy, acquit. If neither are reasonable, then again, acquit because the standard was not met because the presumption of innocence kicks in and the prosecution did not meet their burden of rebutting the presumption. No numbers involved. It is not a 51% preponderance of the evidence, though. It is paying attention to those serious matters of the same kind a person would if they had a fiduciary duty as a trustee. These are serious matters and the gravity of the situation demands serious attention and evidence at that level, not guesses or pure speculation. However, if there are solid observations from which a jury can draw valid conclusions, then those things also can be used. Sometimes the absence of evidence that should have been there can also be considered as long as there is no burden placed on defense to produce evidence.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Wudge]

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.

Overall, a very good post. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but that's not what struck me.

What I like most is that you clearly understand that proof beyond a reasonable doubt represents a degree of certainty and that reasonable doubt has a corresponding degree of certainty (uncertainty) as well. You can articulate and explain this truth, and I believe you would be comfortable arguing it in a true jury deliberation setting.

Sometimes I post with the intention to educate or to significantly illuminate a particular subject. Anytime we discuss reasonable doubt in a thread, I'm likely to make some posts that are oriented this way, and I always enjoy seeing a post or posts that show someone better understands, has largely caught on or has really got it -- it being whatever my focus was.

If you were seated on a jury that was deliberating a case predicated on weak circumstantial evidence and the evidence did not equate to the required degree of certainty, I believe you could successfully guide and move the jury (a true, positive force).

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Overall, a very good post. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but that's not what struck me.

What I like most is that you clearly understand that proof beyond a reasonable doubt represents a degree of certainty and that reasonable doubt has a corresponding degree of certainty (uncertainty) as well. You can articulate and explain this truth, and I believe you would be comfortable arguing it in a true jury deliberation setting.

Sometimes I post with the intention to educate or to significantly illuminate a particular subject. Anytime we discuss reasonable doubt in a thread, I'm likely to make some posts that are oriented this way, and I always enjoy seeing a post or posts that show someone better understands, has largely caught on or has really got it -- it being whatever my focus was.

If you were seated on a jury that was deliberating a case predicated on weak circumstantial evidence and the evidence did not equate to the required degree of certainty, I believe you could successfully guide and move the jury (a true, positive force).

Why should it matter if they reach the right verdict for the wrong reasons? You seem to be a little obsessed with the idea of the legal system being flawless.

 

[Wudge]

Why should it matter if they reach the right verdict for the wrong reasons? You seem to be a little obsessed with the idea of the legal system being flawless.

I've long been bothered by wrongful convictions.

 

[JBean]

Why should it matter if they reach the right verdict for the wrong reasons? .

When a jury bases their verdict on the wrong reasons, we have got problems.

I remember when I was learning to make change while working at a retail store when I was a teen. The boss said, at the end of the night the drawer should balance and not be under or over. I said well I won't worry if it is over because at least I know you got your receipts. But he was not happy with my answer and said, it is equally as bad if the drawer is short or if the drawer is over because either which way it means you are doing it wrong.

 

[Wudge]

When a jury bases their verdict on the wrong reasons, we have got problems.

I remember when I was learning to make change while working at a retail store when I was a teen. The boss said, at the end of the night the drawer should balance and not be under or over. I said well I won't worry if it is over because at least I know you got your receipts. But he was not happy with my answer and said, it is equally as bad if the drawer is short or if the drawer is over because either which way it means you are doing it wrong.

"Because .....(pause)....................... either way ............(longer pause)............................ you're doing it wrong."


(A truly classic and memorable punchline -- perfect for a well-delivered, closing argument getaway.)