Reasonable Doubt and Presumption of Innnocence

[PatriotX]

Here law professor Steve Sheppard says that the presumption of innocence is in danger of disappearing. :eek:!:eek:!:eek:!

“In practice, reasonable doubt doesn’t work the way we think it does,” explained Sheppard. “It has come to mean articulable doubt, a standard that has been directly attacked by federal and state judges on the grounds that it reverses the presumption of innocence.”

IANAL.
Is there good reason to be disturbed?

[doreen]

from the link

Sheppard points out that this standard is subject to infinite reduction. If a juror says that a specific witness is not credible, for example, he might be asked to articulate why the witness was not credible. It also creates a potential barrier to acquittal for less educated or skillful jurors.

I don’t understand this part. Who is asking the juror to articulate anything? And what are the consequences of being unable to articulate the reason for the doubt? I can understand the other jurors asking for a reason during deliberations, but that’s about it. And if they aren’t satisfied with the reason, what are they going to do? Force him to vote to convict? I don’t think there is reason to be disturbed.

[lander2k2]

doreen:
Q1: The other jurors. Q2: If you can’t articulate the reasons for the doubt, per the jury instructions, you can’t vote “not guilty.” Q3: Invoke the regulations defining juror conduct. Q4: If he can’t articulate the resonable doubt, then yes, it seems so.

I have never served on a jury, so my answers are based upon assumptions of how it all works. I figure a jury is restircted by regulations. I don’t know what happens if a juror violates those regulations but I’m sure that they are bound to them if a verdict is to be considered valid.

IMHO opinion this is good reason to be disturbed. Presumption of innocence is vitally important for one simple reason: It is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be executed or incarcerated.

[PatriotX]

I hope that a real live lawyer will get around to reviewing this article.
It’s possible that I lack the background to read something like this and not be gravely concerned.

[Lissa]

*Originally posted by lander2k2 *
**doreen:
Q1: The other jurors. Q2: If you can’t articulate the reasons for the doubt, per the jury instructions, you can’t vote “not guilty.” Q3: Invoke the regulations defining juror conduct. Q4: If he can’t articulate the resonable doubt, then yes, it seems so. **

I have a vague problem with the very idea of persons serving as jurors who cannot clearly and intelligently express themselves. If they are not able to form a simple coherent argument to defend their opinion, perhaps they shouldn’t be jurors.

[doreen]

lander2k2

Sheppard says that “the prosecution’s case didn’t convince me” is a generic doubt, not an “articulable doubt” (a phrase I have never seen before, and a google search found it only in a document unrelated to jurors)) because “articulable doubt” is defined as a doubt for which you can give a specific reason.
But the example instructions he refers to

This instruction defined reasonable doubt as “doubt for which you can give a reason if called upon to do so by a fellow juror in the jury room.”

don’t use the phrase “articulable doubt” or require a specific doubt as opposed to the “prosecution didn’t convince me”. “The prosecution didn’t convince me” is a reason that can be articulated. "I just don’t think he did it " is not.

I don’t have any reason to believe that jurors will insist that other jurors give specific reasons for finding a witness not to be credible, and even Sheppard didn’t claim that this happens, only that it might. At any rate, jury instructions are given to inform individual jurors how they should form their opinions, and I have never heard of a juror being forced to change his or her vote because the reason wasn’t good enough.

[doctordoowop]

There is an intereting case on how juries deliberate. One jury(that we know of) decided a case by a flip of a coin. The appellate court upheld the jury verdict. Moral–juries rarely listen to judges, & don’t know what they’re doing, but courts are very reluctant to alter what they do Rarely a judge let’s someone go after a jury convicts,or reduces a $$$damages verdict. That’s one of the reason there are so many settlements/plea bargains -juries are not trusted.

[Typo_Negative]

It also creates a potential barrier to acquittal for less educated or skillful jurors.

And may help to explain why lawyers seem to use preemptory challenges on educated potential jurors.

[lander2k2]

*Originally posted by Lissa *
**I have a vague problem with the very idea of persons serving as jurors who cannot clearly and intelligently express themselves. If they are not able to form a simple coherent argument to defend their opinion, perhaps they shouldn’t be jurors. **

I must agree. However, to my knowledge jurors aren’t required to pass IQ or literacy tests before they serve. In fact I think prosecutors would often look for such jurors if they don’t want their evidence scrutinized to closley.

[doctordoowop]

All you used to need in Cal was be a reg. voter.Now a license also can get you called. People so despised being called to jury duty, they stopped voting. Gee!

[lander2k2]

*Originally posted by doreen *
**lander2k2

Sheppard says that “the prosecution’s case didn’t convince me” is a generic doubt, not an “articulable doubt” (a phrase I have never seen before, and a google search found it only in a document unrelated to jurors)) because “articulable doubt” is defined as a doubt for which you can give a specific reason.
But the example instructions he refers to

don’t use the phrase “articulable doubt” or require a specific doubt as opposed to the “prosecution didn’t convince me”. “The prosecution didn’t convince me” is a reason that can be articulated. "I just don’t think he did it " is not.

I don’t have any reason to believe that jurors will insist that other jurors give specific reasons for finding a witness not to be credible, and even Sheppard didn’t claim that this happens, only that it might. At any rate, jury instructions are given to inform individual jurors how they should form their opinions, and I have never heard of a juror being forced to change his or her vote because the reason wasn’t good enough. **

I think the point is that creating a framework that puts the onus more on the defense to prove innocence as opposed to the prosecution proving guilt is a bad idea. It is a fundamental question. IMHO, a justice system that, in principle, violates “innocent until proven guilty” is way off base.

You mentioned that you’ve never heard of a juror being forced to change a vote because of a lack of good reason. Why would you hear of such a thing? I’ve never heard of lots of things that have happened.

[doctordoowop]

!2 Angry Men gives everbody ,who hasn’t been on a jury, the wrong idea. The closest any juror ever gets to being asked about their opinion is when the jury is polled.

[doreen]

I think the point is that creating a framework that puts the onus more on the defense to prove innocence as opposed to the prosecution proving guilt is a bad idea. It is a fundamental question. IMHO, a justice system that, in principle, violates “innocent until proven guilty” is way off base.

Sheppard apparently believes that defining “reasonable doubt as a doubt for which you can give a reason” translates at least in the jurors mind to the juror must specifically be able to articulate why he wasn’t convinced by the prosecutions case and must vote guilty if he can’t be that specific and that the burden of proof is therefore shifted. I see no reason to believe based on the linked aticle to believe that the burden is shifted. If your reason for voting for acquittal is because the prosecution’s case doesn’t convince you, then that is a reason that can be articulated. I have no idea why Sheppard believes that if a juror cannot explain precisely why he doesn’t believe a witness the juror will feel compelled to vote for conviction. It would indeed be a bad thing to shift the burden to force the defendant to prove innocence. I don’t see why instructing the jurors that a reasonable doubt is one for which you can articulate a reason , such as the “prosecution didn’t convince me”, or “I didn’t believe X’s testimony” shifts that burden. The example Sheppard gave of jury instruction did not rule them out as reasons.

You mentioned that you’ve never heard of a juror being forced to change a vote because of a lack of good reason. Why would you hear of such a thing? I’ve never heard of lots of things that have happened.

Sure lots of things have happened that I never heard about. But if jurors are forced to change their votes because they don’t have a good enough reason to vote for acquittal, it would have made the news- simply becasue that is precisely the opposite of the way things are suposed to be.You’re the one who assumed that they could be forced to change their vote, and I believe the burden is on you to prove it. Sheppard didn’t even make that claim.

[lander2k2]

doreen:

My assumption was based in part upon the fact that federal and state judges have attacked the standard. I guess they could be up in arms because of some ulterior motive (though I can’t guess what it could be) or the issue might center around something more subtle than jurors being obliged to alter their vote.

That you are so set on making me prove a simple assumption that is obviously impossible to prove makes you sound a little like a prosecutor with an interest in this thing.

I’ll just make it real simple: If “innocent until proven guilty” is being compromised then it spells bad news. If it’s not then the linked article’s author and the judges are all full of shit and we have nothing to worry about. My original statements were based on the assumption that there actually was a real issue to this. My bad. Perhaps I should have spent a week or two researching the issue before passing judgment. Are we done now?