Can the average juror understand and apply the standard of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” when judging a criminal case? Can the average juror understand the “legalese” which judges are required by law to use?
For this purposes of this section, I avoid discussing civil cases since they have different (and lower) standards of proof, and the point that I am trying to make is related to criminal cases which have the most significant consequences for defendants.
In a criminal case, the job of the prosecutor is to demonstrate that the accused party is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” The definitions and explanations for this are often circular in nature (i.e., they frequently incorporate the word “reasonable” itself). If nothing else, the matter is inherently vague and subjective. If a jury is left with absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to a defendant's guilt, then the matter requires no further discussion. What happens, though, if a jury is quite certain that a defendant is guilty, but they simply wouldn't “bet their lives on it?”
A common explanation of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” is that it is OK for jurors to have some doubt as to whether a defendant is guilty, but they must decide whether such doubt falls under the category of “unreasonable” or “reasonable.” The matter quickly becomes complicated because each person has his/her own definition of the word “reasonable,” and may stretch his/her definition in the context of a court case involving a very harsh penalty. There is then the matter of whether an “unreasonable” person (in some sense of the word) is even capable of making such a distinction, as well as whose place it is to determine who is “reasonable” and who isn't.
A further complication is that a juror who does not fully understand all of the nuances of a case may be left with “doubt” based on the most basic definition of the word. Such a juror may think, “I heard lots of confusing stuff (and just lots of stuff in general), and I simply can't be certain as to whether or not the defendant is guilty.” A juror may also know from experience that s/he is not especially smart, educated, intuitive, logical, focused, etc. Such a juror will almost certainly be left with doubt, and will likely classify such doubt as "reasonable" (based on his/her own standard).
Let's look at an example. A juror may think, “There is abundant credible evidence that the defendant is guilty, but it's still theoretically possible that false evidence was planted by so-and-so”—perhaps God, or a third-party who was not referenced in the case, or meddlesome space aliens with advanced stealth technology, etc. Which of those possibilities (if any) are “reasonable” and which ones aren't? Many people believe that Earth is 6000 years old. (It even implies such in the Judeo-Christian bibles that are strewn throughout the jury waiting room in my religiously diverse county). The people who believe this assert that anyone who believes that Earth is 4.5 billion years old is not “reasonable.” Conversely, many people believe that Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and assert that those who do not believe this are not “reasonable.” Some people believe that space aliens intervened in Earth's history, and still show up from time to time to do whatever it is that they do. Is this “reasonable?” Some say yes, and some say no. Is it reasonable to assume that the kindly old lady who lives next door to the defendant planted false evidence even though she was not referenced in the case by either side?
It is my opinion that the standard of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” is simply too abstract, too vague, and just “too much” for the typical randomly-summoned American citizen in the year 2015 to process, especially in the context of a complicated court case. It is far too easy for a defense attorney to bamboozle an ignorant jury (and/or one that isn't listening carefully), and convince them that too much doubt exists in the case for them to fairly convict the defendant. It could be as simple as reminding the jury that the incident in question took place at night on a dark street where it was hard to see. The jury may also be reminded that at the time of the alleged crime, the defendant was wearing articles of clothing similar to those commonly worn by the majority of his/her demographic (e.g, blue jeans and a gray hoodie), and that s/he could easily have been a victim of mistaken identity—simply “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
There is also the matter of whether a typical juror is capable of understanding the legal jargon which is used in court cases. It is my understanding that it is unlawful for judges to “dumb down” their instructions to jurors in any way, as well as unlawful for judges to simplify explanations of the laws which relate to a given case. This is a good place to point out something that was said in the juror orientation video that was shown in the assembly room during my recent jury duty service. The unseen narrator in the video stated that when it comes to making a decision in a case, “Just use good old fashioned common sense.” She also said that to determine whether a participant in a case is telling the truth, “Use the same tests for truthfulness that you do in everyday life.” I hope that the reader agrees with me on the absolute ridiculousness of this in the context of a legal system that requires that nothing be simplified for the sake of potentially uneducated, ignorant, and inattentive jurors.
My point is as follows: The typical American citizen in 2015 may be able to process and extract keywords from a 20-word “tweet” or text message, and may be able to process a simple two-minute “explainer” video on a news website provided that the video includes colorful fast-moving animated graphics, single words or short phrases that appear in a very large font, and a catchy music loop playing in the background. However, it is my opinion that the typical American citizen in 2015 cannot fully process the instructions that are given to him/her by a judge, and cannot fully understand the nuances of the laws that come into play as part the case that s/he is judging. This is absolutely obscene, but people get very angry at the suggestion to have juries comprised of only those who have been formally tested to ensure that they are capable of fully understanding everything that is required to judge a case fairly. We also get angry at the suggestion of having juries comprised of nothing but lawyers, judges, and professional experts on matters related to the particular case because we feel as though they begin the case already “knowing too much,” and that such is “unfair.” As with many topics in this book, this is all just a matter for thought and discussion.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
In a criminal case, the job of the prosecutor is to demonstrate that the accused party is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” The definitions and explanations for this are often circular in nature (i.e., they frequently incorporate the word “reasonable” itself). If nothing else, the matter is inherently vague and subjective. If a jury is left with absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to a defendant's guilt, then the matter requires no further discussion. What happens, though, if a jury is quite certain that a defendant is guilty, but they simply wouldn't “bet their lives on it?”
A common explanation of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” is that it is OK for jurors to have some doubt as to whether a defendant is guilty, but they must decide whether such doubt falls under the category of “unreasonable” or “reasonable.” The matter quickly becomes complicated because each person has his/her own definition of the word “reasonable,” and may stretch his/her definition in the context of a court case involving a very harsh penalty. There is then the matter of whether an “unreasonable” person (in some sense of the word) is even capable of making such a distinction, as well as whose place it is to determine who is “reasonable” and who isn't.
A further complication is that a juror who does not fully understand all of the nuances of a case may be left with “doubt” based on the most basic definition of the word. Such a juror may think, “I heard lots of confusing stuff (and just lots of stuff in general), and I simply can't be certain as to whether or not the defendant is guilty.” A juror may also know from experience that s/he is not especially smart, educated, intuitive, logical, focused, etc. Such a juror will almost certainly be left with doubt, and will likely classify such doubt as "reasonable" (based on his/her own standard).
Let's look at an example. A juror may think, “There is abundant credible evidence that the defendant is guilty, but it's still theoretically possible that false evidence was planted by so-and-so”—perhaps God, or a third-party who was not referenced in the case, or meddlesome space aliens with advanced stealth technology, etc. Which of those possibilities (if any) are “reasonable” and which ones aren't? Many people believe that Earth is 6000 years old. (It even implies such in the Judeo-Christian bibles that are strewn throughout the jury waiting room in my religiously diverse county). The people who believe this assert that anyone who believes that Earth is 4.5 billion years old is not “reasonable.” Conversely, many people believe that Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and assert that those who do not believe this are not “reasonable.” Some people believe that space aliens intervened in Earth's history, and still show up from time to time to do whatever it is that they do. Is this “reasonable?” Some say yes, and some say no. Is it reasonable to assume that the kindly old lady who lives next door to the defendant planted false evidence even though she was not referenced in the case by either side?
It is my opinion that the standard of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” is simply too abstract, too vague, and just “too much” for the typical randomly-summoned American citizen in the year 2015 to process, especially in the context of a complicated court case. It is far too easy for a defense attorney to bamboozle an ignorant jury (and/or one that isn't listening carefully), and convince them that too much doubt exists in the case for them to fairly convict the defendant. It could be as simple as reminding the jury that the incident in question took place at night on a dark street where it was hard to see. The jury may also be reminded that at the time of the alleged crime, the defendant was wearing articles of clothing similar to those commonly worn by the majority of his/her demographic (e.g, blue jeans and a gray hoodie), and that s/he could easily have been a victim of mistaken identity—simply “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
There is also the matter of whether a typical juror is capable of understanding the legal jargon which is used in court cases. It is my understanding that it is unlawful for judges to “dumb down” their instructions to jurors in any way, as well as unlawful for judges to simplify explanations of the laws which relate to a given case. This is a good place to point out something that was said in the juror orientation video that was shown in the assembly room during my recent jury duty service. The unseen narrator in the video stated that when it comes to making a decision in a case, “Just use good old fashioned common sense.” She also said that to determine whether a participant in a case is telling the truth, “Use the same tests for truthfulness that you do in everyday life.” I hope that the reader agrees with me on the absolute ridiculousness of this in the context of a legal system that requires that nothing be simplified for the sake of potentially uneducated, ignorant, and inattentive jurors.
My point is as follows: The typical American citizen in 2015 may be able to process and extract keywords from a 20-word “tweet” or text message, and may be able to process a simple two-minute “explainer” video on a news website provided that the video includes colorful fast-moving animated graphics, single words or short phrases that appear in a very large font, and a catchy music loop playing in the background. However, it is my opinion that the typical American citizen in 2015 cannot fully process the instructions that are given to him/her by a judge, and cannot fully understand the nuances of the laws that come into play as part the case that s/he is judging. This is absolutely obscene, but people get very angry at the suggestion to have juries comprised of only those who have been formally tested to ensure that they are capable of fully understanding everything that is required to judge a case fairly. We also get angry at the suggestion of having juries comprised of nothing but lawyers, judges, and professional experts on matters related to the particular case because we feel as though they begin the case already “knowing too much,” and that such is “unfair.” As with many topics in this book, this is all just a matter for thought and discussion.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents