The Florida jury instructions say that a reasonable doubt is “not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt”. But I’m trying to wrap my head around what exactly a “forced” doubt is. Can anyone give me any guidance or example(s)?
I have spent hours searching and all my search hits just parrot off that sentence above.
As for why I want to know, if it matters: No, I’m not asking for law school homework help nor am I asking for legal advice. I was called up for jury service years ago (not in FL) and it occurred to me back then that I really had no idea what reasonable doubt really was. I do like the FL jury instructions as compared to my home state but I’ve never been able to define “forced doubt”.
I suppose it’s a doubt you force yourself to have - like someone coming up with a variety of reasons why a loved one could possibly be innocent, even if that requires supposing that there is an identical stranger with similar clothing and similar fingerprints who stole the loved one’s car and ran down a person that the loved one hated.
“Reasonable” is a legal term that has paid for many country club memberships.
I’m going to guess that “not reasonable doubt” means that it could have been aliens, the coroner and DNA analyst could be wrong or in cahoots, there might be another gun out there with very similar barrel markings, there could be a another car same make with the same tires, etc. These are doubts, but very forced doubts.
A “reasonable doubt” is a real (and reasonable) doubt which you actually have, or can really imagine yourself having.
A “forced doubt” is a doubt you do NOT really have, but might imagine when pondering the phrase “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and trying to bend over backwards.
I have served on a couple of juries, and I have witnessed people who are so terrified of accidentally convicting an innocent person, that they will perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid voting “guilty”.
Take for example; fingerprints. According to NOLO.com some fingerprint experts will declare a match with 12 points of comparison, while others won’t until there are 20. How many points of comparison were there?
How were the fingerprints collected? Were the fingerprints found complete, or were they assembled like puzzle pieces from a couple of dozen partial prints? Reasonable and forced doubt is going to exist on a continuum.
My state’s jury instructions say that a reasonable doubt is “one that fairly and naturally arises from the evidence in the case” or lack thereof. That’s straightforward and simple to understand.
But then it goes on to say that it is “the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act”. Spending hours/days/weeks deliberating sure sounds like hesitation in my book! By my interpretation many folks should never be convicted if that were really followed to the letter. Unless we are to assume that all the persons in the jury room are not reasonable persons.
Here is a Florida lawyer who says that reasonable doubt “really does not make any sense” because “defining what it is not – ‘not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt’” - is not straightforward or clear, unlike a federal court definition: