What does beyond a reasonable doubt really mean?”
n Wisconsin, the term “reasonable doubt” means a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It is a doubt for which a reason can be given, arising from a fair and rational consideration of the evidence or lack of evidence. It means such a doubt as would cause a person of ordinary prudence to pause or hesitate when called upon to act in the most important affairs of life. A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. A doubt which arises merely from sympathy or from fear to return a verdict of guilt is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a doubt such as may be used to escape the responsibility of a decision.
The currently ongoing Conrad Black trial is the jumping off point for TIME Magazine’s recent article “The Benefits of Doubt,” which discusses the meaning of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. (Hat Tip: Anne Reed at Deliberations) The article highlights a serious issue confronting all criminal defense practitioners: what does “beyond a reasonable doubt” really mean, and how do you convey that to a jury? Unfortunately, it is very imprecise. …in practice, reasonable doubt may make convictions too easy. At least half a dozen studies have found that when the prosecution’s case isn’t airtight, juries often interpret “beyond a reasonable doubt” to mean, in effect, probably guilty. In one study, prospective jurors said they would be willing to convict on a 60% chance that the suspect had committed the crime. Sixty percent! And possibly as low as “more than fifty percent”, if the jury uses a “probably guilty” standard. That’s frightening. I’ll post more soon on some effective voir dire/jury selection
