Replies

I heard this clown make this comment earlier today. Lots of parents and spouses have been viewed by those on the outside as “wonderful” and they are shocked to find out that behind closed doors, they are not wonderful. Casey's mother and father are the only ones who had direct knowledge of what kind of mother Casey was and they don't think she was a wonderful mother. This alternate juror is a total idiot, but he serves a useful purpose. He exposes the truth about the stupidity of jurors. The issue is “reasonable doubt” and the jury was looking for “no doubt”. I mean give me a break, there is always the possibility of aliens from outer space. The jury FAILED to do their job!

"He exposes the truth about the stupidity of jurors. The issue is “reasonable doubt” and the jury was looking for “no doubt”. I mean give me a break, there is always the possibility of aliens from outer space.

After almost 40 years working as a court reporter/stenographer in the military justice system, I have always felt that the instruction given to panel members on reasonable doubt was excellent. When my mother was picked for jury duty, before she actually served in a trial, she called me and asked me what I thought "reasonable doubt" meant. I read the "reasonable doubt" instruction from the Military Judges' Benchbook verbatim ...

"By "reasonable doubt" is intended not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. it is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothesis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The rule as to reasonable doubt extends to every element of the offenses, although each particular fact advanced by the prosecution, which does not amount to an element, need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if, on the whole evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of each and every element, then you should find the accused guilty."

I have also always felt that the circumstantial evidence instruction was very illuminating and read that to her as well ...

"Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is evidence which tends directly to prove or disprove a fact in issue. If a fact in issue was whether it rained during the evening, testimony by a witness that he or she saw it rain would be direct evidence that it rained. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence which tends to prove some other fact from which, either alone or together with some other facts or circumstances, you may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue. If there was evidence that the street was wet in the morning, that would be circumstantial evidence from which might reasonably infer that it rained during the night in the absence of any intervening circumstance or fact. There is no general rule for determining or comparing the weight to be given to direct or circumstantial evidence. You should give all the evidence the weight and value you believe it deserves."