I’m not sure about this. I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never served on a jury. However when called for jury duty once, I made it far enough in the selection process before being excused for the lawyers and the judge to start talking about the definition of “reasonable doubt”.
The prosecuting attorney didn’t talk in percentages, but she did pose the following question for the jury (of course I’m paraphrasing since I don’t remember the exact words):
“I’m not required to prove the defendant guilty beyond any doubt. I’m only required to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Are you comfortable with this concept?”
Presumably this was with a view to excusing any juror who would require the higher standard of proof (beyond any doubt). She was clearly preparing the jury for the possibility that the defendant might not be quite definitely guilty, but that it was close enough the jury should convict anyways.
I served on a jury in a case involving child sexual abuse. All of us on the jury agreed that the defendant had almost certainly committed the abuse. But we also all agreed that “almost certain” wasn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So we acquitted. One of the hardest damn things I’ve ever done.
My mother served on a jury, and said she agreed with the other jurors: the guy was probably guilty, but that’s not good enough to convict, so he’s free to go.
Speaking of low probability scenarios that are nevertheless true, what are the freaking odds that I would come back to SD after a 2 year absence and find a thread I started 13 years ago on the front page? Unreal
This is the single most important thing that jurors must understand. My guess is a lot of jurors think “probably did it” is beyond a reasonable doubt.
On another note, having watched documentaries like the The Central Park Five and Thin Blue Line where prosecutors are egregiously manipulating evidence, and other cases like the Duke lacrosse kids, even “beyond a reasonable doubt” seems scarely inadequate