Libby Jurors: Define 'Reasonable Doubt'

AP via SFGate ^ | 3/2/7 | MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN

[right wing]

Let's hope that there are at least a few that will hang the jury rather than convict. I'm flabberghasted that they have been deliberating this long. Obviously there are some on this jury that want to convict.

If he is convicted, Bush should pardon him IMMEDIATELY, but I doubt he will.

[supercat]

Most likely is not beyond reasonable doubt.

By a common-language definition of the term "doubt", something that is clearly most likely true could be seen as being beyond a reasonable doubt. Legally the term "reasonable doubt" means something more specific, but my point was that common-language definitions of words often don't quite match their legal meanings.

[Dan(9698)]

I disagree.

Most likely leaves room on the other side which would be doubt.

If the doubt has a reason attached to it it becomes reasonable doubt. The doubt could be "well my memory fails me at times, why should his be perfect"

Since the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt", the proof must be on the far side of that, closer to certainty.

Most likely leaves a large gap from certainty.

[JCEccles]

It's a confusingly worded question, the kind one might expect from a confused and frustrated jury.

A confused and frustrated jury is more likely to throw its hands up in the air and acquit, in my opinion.

[supercat]

I would say that the prosecutor would have to have more than eye witness account to prove a link between the car and someone who was abducted. They would have to show by some means that the child was in the car at some time.

Fine, say there were a number people who saw the car, one of whom caught (or thought he caught) the whole license plate and some of whom saw the first few characters. Further suppose that some of the witnesses heard the voice of a screaming child coming from the car. In short, assume that the prosecutor has established absolutely that a car resembling the defendant's, with a license plate at least close to the defendant's, was used by the abductor.

Also I believe the defense would have to prove a link to some other car. Otherwise it is speculation. I don't believe they could introduce other evidence without showing a link.

That's my understanding too. I would suggest, though, that if the facts of the case were as described, the facts that a car whose appearance and license plate were close to those of the defendants' was found in a lake, and that said car belonged to a convicted child molester, would explain how witnesses could have seen a car similar to the defendant's without the defendant having committed the crime and would thus provide a basis for reasonable doubt.

True, the suggestion that the child molester had committed the crime would be speculation, but the defense is supposed to only have to show that it's possible someone else committed the crime, and that the evidence presented in court is not inconsistent with such a theory.

To be sure, the defense shouldn't just be able to spring such evidence on the prosecutor at trial; the prosecutor must be allowed to seek out evidence to contradict any such alternate theory (e.g. if the child molester in question was in fact in jail at the time of the abduction, that would undermine the theory that he had committed the crime). Sometimes, though, judges will go further and effectively prevent defendants from even raising the issue of other people who might have committed the crime in such fashion as to be consistent with the evidence in court; to me that just seems wrong.

[supercat]

Most likely leaves room on the other side which would be doubt.

That depends on the meaning of the word doubt; depending upon context it can either mean something is uncertain, or that it is unlikely.

For example, if someone was asked if he thought it would rain and he estimated the probability at 60%, a response of "I doubt it" would be a highly unusual usage of the term, to put it mildly. Likewise if someone described as "doubtful" a project that had a 60% chance of success.

Although people using terms such as "likely", "doubtful", etc. often don't compute probabilities, I would expect that in common usage something would only be described as "doubtful" if the probability was in the range of 1%-40%: unlikely to happen, but not totally shocking if it does. As a verb, I would suggest "doubt" often conveys a similar degree of unlikelihood.

As a noun, the word may sometimes connote more uncertainty than unlikelihood, but that depends a lot on context. I don't think it's obvious linguistically that something that is "beyond a reasonable doubt" would mean more than that no reasonable person could consider it unlikely. Obviously in a legal sense it must mean more, but I don't think the meanings of "reasonable" and "doubt" make that clear.

[Dan(9698)]

You are putting more into it than it means.

If you take a scale of 0 to 100, 50 would be midway.

Anything 51 or above would be more likely than not.

That leaves a large gap from 51 to 100. That is why it is broken into finer category's.

Any proof that is 51% or more satisfies the standard of more likely or not, or the weight of the evidence.

Somewhere around 75% (it is not formally spelled out) it satisfies "proof by the preponderance of the evidence".

Somewhere between 95 and 99 satisfies beyond a reasonable doubt. (That is also not formally spelled out).

As you can see, the burden of proof can be a heavy burden.

It is not intended to be evenhanded.

That is why it is spelled out in the law, who bears the burden of proof.

[Dan(9698)]

There are additional considerations.

All presumptions go to the defense. The prosecutor can not show anything by presuming or taking it for granted, or according to common sense.

Each item that goes into the proof must meet the standard of proof. It must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt or the point goes to the defense.

If one item in a chain of proof fails to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the chain goes to the defense as not proven.

The right to a fair trial is for the defendant, the prosecutor has no right to a "fair trial".

The persecutor only has duties, no rights. His duty is to provide a fair trial to the defendant, and to meet the burden of proof, or he loses.

Again, it is not intended to be evenhanded. A heavy burden is placed on the prosecutor from the start.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hollywood takes lessons from the Treason Media when it comes to fiction.

[getitright]

You are spectacular.

When I read your words why do I hear Willy and Toby?

(Justice is the one thing you should always find.... You've got to saddle up your boys. You've got to draw a hard line....)

Way to hang tough and get er done.