Getting out of jury duty (1 Viewer)

[Gally]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

 

[Gally]

The study below talks about police perjury.

Here is a snippet from the study you posted:

"A literature review revealed that lying is as common or more common than honesty in modern life. The courts, police agencies, and society have acknowledged, justified, and approved the use of lying and deception by police. The present research used interviews with more than 100 police officers and a subsequent focus group of 6 police officers to specify 9 dimensions and 50 levels as categories for the factorial survey. The participants received questionnaires containing 24 unique vignettes. Each vignette depicted a typical arrest situation. The participants made judgments on each vignette."

The bold seems to allude to arrest situations and not trial testimony. I have no doubt a lot of cops lie to suspects all the time to try and get them to incriminate themselves. TV has taught us that it is ok for cops to lie to suspects (I assume that is true in real life too) but that is vastly different than lying on the stand during a trial. I am not so sure that study is talking about trial situations which would be eye opening and very bad. Does lying on the stand happen? I have no doubt that it does, but I wouldn't even guess at the rate.

 

[BassNBrew]

The study below talks about police perjury.

Here is a snippet from the study you posted:

"A literature review revealed that lying is as common or more common than honesty in modern life. The courts, police agencies, and society have acknowledged, justified, and approved the use of lying and deception by police. The present research used interviews with more than 100 police officers and a subsequent focus group of 6 police officers to specify 9 dimensions and 50 levels as categories for the factorial survey. The participants received questionnaires containing 24 unique vignettes. Each vignette depicted a typical arrest situation. The participants made judgments on each vignette."

The bold seems to allude to arrest situations and not trial testimony. I have no doubt a lot of cops lie to suspects all the time to try and get them to incriminate themselves. TV has taught us that it is ok for cops to lie to suspects (I assume that is true in real life too) but that is vastly different than lying on the stand during a trial. I am not so sure that study is talking about trial situations which would be eye opening and very bad. Does lying on the stand happen? I have no doubt that it does, but I wouldn't even guess at the rate.

Good catch...looks like that doesn't support my argument.

 

[BassNBrew]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Looking forward to @Zow weighing in.

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people in jail IMO. Maybe that's the case. That percent is closer to coin flip than 99%. By no means am I saying your perspective is wrong, just different.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt.

Beyond a reasonable doubt should mean none of the doubts are reasonable - correct? I would think that as a juror you could, maybe even should have lots of "doubts" that you eventually dismiss as being far fetched before settling on guilty. But all it would take is one doubt that cannot be so easily dismissed to properly result in an acquittal even if you were 99% sure the accused did it.

ETA: I'll let others suggest whether or not this is what happens in practice.

 

[Gally]

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people

I don't think that is necessarily true. Circumstantial evidence by definition will lessen the "percentage" because you don't know for sure. There is no "smoking gun" so to speak. But that doesn't mean that 25-30% of convicted people (based on my example) must be innocent. It just means that I am saying it is reasonable to believe they are guilty. It's why putting a percentage on that definition seems so odd to me.

In the mathematical sense of the word 70-75 percent to get me "beyond a reasonable doubt" could be construed as 25-30% of the time the person is innocent but that isn't exactly what I mean by assigning that percentage. It's why the concept is so weird to me.

 

[belljr]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Not to side bar but you want to know the reason it took so long to allow cellphones during takeoff and landings. Because all testing could not 100% conclude there was no interference. And the FAA is not going to stamp it if there is potential for human casualties until they can be almost absolute lly certain

 

[Gally]

Beyond a reasonable doubt should mean none of the doubts are reasonable - correct? I would think that as a juror you could, maybe even should have lots of "doubts" that you eventually dismiss as being far fetched before settling on guilty. But all it would take is one doubt that cannot be so easily dismissed to properly result in an acquittal even if you were 99% sure the accused did it.

I agree but the way @BassNBrew assigned his percentage didn't seem correct to me. I took his description was that he needed concrete proof (seeing the suspect do the crime was essentially the only thing he would accept as "beyond reasonable doubt"). For example, because there are lying police and corrupt prosecutors that he wouldn't believe anything they say at all so unless there was visual evidence it was a not guilty verdict for him (I may be overstepping my interpretation and if I am please correct me).

I agree that "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't equate to having video evidence. That circumstantial evidence can pile on enough eliminating any reasonable explanation other than the suspect is guilty. For example, the murder trial I was on a jury for. Nobody say the suspect beat up and assault the victim. His DNA was in the house. He had items from the victims house. He was in the area at the time of the assault. He fled from the police. None of that is 99% proof that the suspect beat the victim. But add up all the circumstantial evidence and it brought it to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for me. I am just not sure how a percentage figures in for reasonable doubt.

 

[BassNBrew]

Beyond a reasonable doubt should mean none of the doubts are reasonable - correct? I would think that as a juror you could, maybe even should have lots of "doubts" that you eventually dismiss as being far fetched before settling on guilty. But all it would take is one doubt that cannot be so easily dismissed to properly result in an acquittal even if you were 99% sure the accused did it.

I agree but the way @BassNBrew assigned his percentage didn't seem correct to me. I took his description was that he needed concrete proof (seeing the suspect do the crime was essentially the only thing he would accept as "beyond reasonable doubt"). For example, because there are lying police and corrupt prosecutors that he wouldn't believe anything they say at all so unless there was visual evidence it was a not guilty verdict for him (I may be overstepping my interpretation and if I am please correct me).

I agree that "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't equate to having video evidence. That circumstantial evidence can pile on enough eliminating any reasonable explanation other than the suspect is guilty. For example, the murder trial I was on a jury for. Nobody say the suspect beat up and assault the victim. His DNA was in the house. He had items from the victims house. He was in the area at the time of the assault. He fled from the police. None of that is 99% proof that the suspect beat the victim. But add up all the circumstantial evidence and it brought it to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for me. I am just not sure how a percentage figures in for reasonable doubt.

Can you please clarify before I comment further.

 

[Gally]

Not to side bar but you want to know the reason it took so long to allow cellphones during takeoff and landings. Because all testing could not 100% conclude there was no interference. And the FAA is not going to stamp it if there is potential for human casualties until they can be almost absolute lly certain

I would say that the FAA wants more than "reasonable doubt" that cell phones won't interfere. They want 99.99999999999% certainty that they won't. I mean i was flabberghasted to learn that LED light bulbs make it so my garage remote signal gets blocked. Took me 10 days to figure that one out as I finally went to the interwebz only to find out not to use LED bulbs.

 

[dkp993]

Which state? In CA apparently nothing happens if you don't show up.

What makes you say this? I get jury duty like clockwork every three years and I show up and they're very serious about it. I don't think they could be more serious. Maybe you're talking Northern California or urban areas. I'm in a sprawling exurb. They need us on that wall.

From my understanding, there is no enforcement to not showing up. They certainly make it sound scary but don’t have the manpower or time to actually enforce it. At least that’s what I’ve been told.

 

[Gally]

Can you please clarify before I comment further.

I am not sure what more you want clarified. There were people that saw the suspect in and around the victims house at the time of the assault. Exiting the residence and the police were on scene quickly and pursed the suspect in the neighborhood near the residence. Was that enough clarification? Not sure what you are looking for.

 

[BassNBrew]

Can you please clarify before I comment further.

I am not sure what more you want clarified. There were people that saw the suspect in and around the victims house at the time of the assault. Exiting the residence and the police were on scene quickly and pursed the suspect in the neighborhood near the residence. Was that enough clarification? Not sure what you are looking for.

the murder trial I was on a jury for"

 

[Gally]

Can you please clarify before I comment further.

I am not sure what more you want clarified. There were people that saw the suspect in and around the victims house at the time of the assault. Exiting the residence and the police were on scene quickly and pursed the suspect in the neighborhood near the residence. Was that enough clarification? Not sure what you are looking for.

the murder trial I was on a jury for"

I was in a jury for a murder trial. What more clarification do you need?

 

[BassNBrew]

Can you please clarify before I comment further.

I am not sure what more you want clarified. There were people that saw the suspect in and around the victims house at the time of the assault. Exiting the residence and the police were on scene quickly and pursed the suspect in the neighborhood near the residence. Was that enough clarification? Not sure what you are looking for.

the murder trial I was on a jury for"

I was in a jury for a murder trial. What more clarification do you need?

"There were people that saw the suspect in and around the victims house at the time of the assault"

Trying to understand if it was a murder or an assault. I wasn't sure if there was a typo or if you were calling the murder an assault. You reference assault more frequently so I was confused. I highlight both words in your post where I asked for clarification.

 

[Gally]

Trying to understand if it was a murder or an assault. I wasn't sure if there was a typo or if you were calling the murder an assault. You reference assault more frequently so I was confused. I highlight both words in your post where I asked for clarification.

It was an interesting case. The suspect beat up and sexually assaulted the victim and left her for dead. She survived for a week only to die of a pulmonary embolism in the hospital. Legally it was considered first degree murder because the beating took place during the course of a felony (felony murder rule). There were specific jury instructions outlining what burden of proof was necessary to convict. Primarily was the PE caused by the beating or not? A very interesting (and disturbing) case.

 

[Zow]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Looking forward to @Zow weighing in.

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people in jail IMO. Maybe that's the case. That percent is closer to coin flip than 99%. By no means am I saying your perspective is wrong, just different.

I have a few here to respond. Unfortunately, at least as my jurisdiction defines it, there really isn't a percentage to assign it. That said, the following statements would be legally accurate to say in my jurisdiction as to how to define "proof beyond a reasonable doubt":

- "There are few things in life that we can beyond any doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any doubt but is, instead, proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt."
- "If you have any doubt, based in reason, then you must find the Defendant not guilty."
- "The government has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

The above are all legally approved statements (the first and third actual come from the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions). Obviously, they don't really help with a percentage. However, it may be helpful to describe two other burdens of proof that are lesser burdens of proof compared to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence - this is the civil standard generally applied when monetary damages are at stake (e.g. OJ civil suit, when Coke sues Pepsi, etc.). It can also be stated as "more likely than not" or "fifty percent plus one." So, this burden of proof give us an actual percentage, 51%, and since it is a lesser burden of proof then proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be significantly greater than 51%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence - This is the standard to sever a parent's rights to his kid. It is best defined as it is titled. To me, this is probably in that 75% range and, again, it's a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gun to my head, and though this isn't written anywhere in law, I'd say proof beyond a reasonable doubt is ~95% or so and, frankly, it should be given that it's the standard we apply to the death penalty and life in prison.

 

[Zow]

Which state? In CA apparently nothing happens if you don't show up.

What makes you say this? I get jury duty like clockwork every three years and I show up and they're very serious about it. I don't think they could be more serious. Maybe you're talking Northern California or urban areas. I'm in a sprawling exurb. They need us on that wall.

From my understanding, there is no enforcement to not showing up. They certainly make it sound scary but don’t have the manpower or time to actually enforce it. At least that’s what I’ve been told.

I think this is really jurisdiction specific.

 

[dkp993]

Which state? In CA apparently nothing happens if you don't show up.

What makes you say this? I get jury duty like clockwork every three years and I show up and they're very serious about it. I don't think they could be more serious. Maybe you're talking Northern California or urban areas. I'm in a sprawling exurb. They need us on that wall.

From my understanding, there is no enforcement to not showing up. They certainly make it sound scary but don’t have the manpower or time to actually enforce it. At least that’s what I’ve been told.

I think this is really jurisdiction specific.

You’ve covered your bases counselor.

 

[Runkle]

I've always wondered... can a member of the Jury use "outside knowledge" not provided as evidence or otherwise challenged in court? Like, I know a juror can't do their own research outside of the trial evidence. And a juror isn't supposed to start with outside bias. But say, maybe as an example, some case hinged on a witness testifying that they clearly saw something like a car or the suspect traveling due north on a certain north/south street, and that testimony and evidence is not disputed by the defense, but the juror just happens to know that the said street actually runs east/west and therefore the witness's testimony is fabricated. Would that outside personal knowledge be contrary to any rules? I'm guessing probably not in an overall sense, since the jury is infallible, but, it might seem contrary to typical jury instruction.

 

[Runkle]

Oh, also, last time I made it in to a jury pool for voir dire, before the questioning started, all 50-or-whatever of us had to be 'sworn in' before being interviewed by the lawyers. Answers were taken down by the court stenographer.

I guess it'd be interesting to just wait for a particularly thorny issue of the case to be brought up and then just plead the Fifth. Like I imagine in a drug case, jurors could be asked if they have any personal history with drug abuse that might influence their opinion of the case. Those that answer 'yes' are typically followed up with to see how much their personal history might affect their judgement or likelihood to apply a penalty, but, presumably a potential juror could refuse to elaborate further under Fifth Amendment grounds, right? How hard can they really push for an answer?

 

[Instinctive]

I've always wondered... can a member of the Jury use "outside knowledge" not provided as evidence or otherwise challenged in court? Like, I know a juror can't do their own research outside of the trial evidence. And a juror isn't supposed to start with outside bias. But say, maybe as an example, some case hinged on a witness testifying that they clearly saw something like a car or the suspect traveling due north on a certain north/south street, and that testimony and evidence is not disputed by the defense, but the juror just happens to know that the said street actually runs east/west and therefore the witness's testimony is fabricated. Would that outside personal knowledge be contrary to any rules? I'm guessing probably not in an overall sense, since the jury is infallible, but, it might seem contrary to typical jury instruction.

Some jurisdictions jurors can submit a question to the judge to ask a witness. Only way I think your scenario should come into play, otherwise you should decide on the facts as laid out by the case.

 

[Ilov80s]

I've always wondered... can a member of the Jury use "outside knowledge" not provided as evidence or otherwise challenged in court? Like, I know a juror can't do their own research outside of the trial evidence. And a juror isn't supposed to start with outside bias. But say, maybe as an example, some case hinged on a witness testifying that they clearly saw something like a car or the suspect traveling due north on a certain north/south street, and that testimony and evidence is not disputed by the defense, but the juror just happens to know that the said street actually runs east/west and therefore the witness's testimony is fabricated. Would that outside personal knowledge be contrary to any rules? I'm guessing probably not in an overall sense, since the jury is infallible, but, it might seem contrary to typical jury instruction.

In the example you give, I would think yes the juror absolutely can and should use that knowledge and should share it with fellow jurors during deliberation.

 

[Ilov80s]

I've always wondered... can a member of the Jury use "outside knowledge" not provided as evidence or otherwise challenged in court? Like, I know a juror can't do their own research outside of the trial evidence. And a juror isn't supposed to start with outside bias. But say, maybe as an example, some case hinged on a witness testifying that they clearly saw something like a car or the suspect traveling due north on a certain north/south street, and that testimony and evidence is not disputed by the defense, but the juror just happens to know that the said street actually runs east/west and therefore the witness's testimony is fabricated. Would that outside personal knowledge be contrary to any rules? I'm guessing probably not in an overall sense, since the jury is infallible, but, it might seem contrary to typical jury instruction.

Some jurisdictions jurors can submit a question to the judge to ask a witness. Only way I think your scenario should come into play, otherwise you should decide on the facts as laid out by the case.

I

I've always wondered... can a member of the Jury use "outside knowledge" not provided as evidence or otherwise challenged in court? Like, I know a juror can't do their own research outside of the trial evidence. And a juror isn't supposed to start with outside bias. But say, maybe as an example, some case hinged on a witness testifying that they clearly saw something like a car or the suspect traveling due north on a certain north/south street, and that testimony and evidence is not disputed by the defense, but the juror just happens to know that the said street actually runs east/west and therefore the witness's testimony is fabricated. Would that outside personal knowledge be contrary to any rules? I'm guessing probably not in an overall sense, since the jury is infallible, but, it might seem contrary to typical jury instruction.

Some jurisdictions jurors can submit a question to the judge to ask a witness. Only way I think your scenario should come into play, otherwise you should decide on the facts as laid out by the case.

I believe jurors are tasked with determining for themselves the validity of every witness and their statements. I don’t see how you can ignore things you plainly know to be true in doing so.

 

[BassNBrew]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Looking forward to @Zow weighing in.

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people in jail IMO. Maybe that's the case. That percent is closer to coin flip than 99%. By no means am I saying your perspective is wrong, just different.

I have a few here to respond. Unfortunately, at least as my jurisdiction defines it, there really isn't a percentage to assign it. That said, the following statements would be legally accurate to say in my jurisdiction as to how to define "proof beyond a reasonable doubt":

- "There are few things in life that we can beyond any doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any doubt but is, instead, proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt."
- "If you have any doubt, based in reason, then you must find the Defendant not guilty."
- "The government has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

The above are all legally approved statements (the first and third actual come from the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions). Obviously, they don't really help with a percentage. However, it may be helpful to describe two other burdens of proof that are lesser burdens of proof compared to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence - this is the civil standard generally applied when monetary damages are at stake (e.g. OJ civil suit, when Coke sues Pepsi, etc.). It can also be stated as "more likely than not" or "fifty percent plus one." So, this burden of proof give us an actual percentage, 51%, and since it is a lesser burden of proof then proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be significantly greater than 51%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence - This is the standard to sever a parent's rights to his kid. It is best defined as it is titled. To me, this is probably in that 75% range and, again, it's a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gun to my head, and though this isn't written anywhere in law, I'd say proof beyond a reasonable doubt is ~95% or so and, frankly, it should be given that it's the standard we apply to the death penalty and life in prison.

Thanks for the reply.

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

 

[Zow]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Looking forward to @Zow weighing in.

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people in jail IMO. Maybe that's the case. That percent is closer to coin flip than 99%. By no means am I saying your perspective is wrong, just different.

I have a few here to respond. Unfortunately, at least as my jurisdiction defines it, there really isn't a percentage to assign it. That said, the following statements would be legally accurate to say in my jurisdiction as to how to define "proof beyond a reasonable doubt":

- "There are few things in life that we can beyond any doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any doubt but is, instead, proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt."
- "If you have any doubt, based in reason, then you must find the Defendant not guilty."
- "The government has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

The above are all legally approved statements (the first and third actual come from the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions). Obviously, they don't really help with a percentage. However, it may be helpful to describe two other burdens of proof that are lesser burdens of proof compared to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence - this is the civil standard generally applied when monetary damages are at stake (e.g. OJ civil suit, when Coke sues Pepsi, etc.). It can also be stated as "more likely than not" or "fifty percent plus one." So, this burden of proof give us an actual percentage, 51%, and since it is a lesser burden of proof then proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be significantly greater than 51%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence - This is the standard to sever a parent's rights to his kid. It is best defined as it is titled. To me, this is probably in that 75% range and, again, it's a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gun to my head, and though this isn't written anywhere in law, I'd say proof beyond a reasonable doubt is ~95% or so and, frankly, it should be given that it's the standard we apply to the death penalty and life in prison.

Thanks for the reply.

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

Not arguing with you there as I generally agree with your sentiment.* I just tried to objectively quantify the standard pursuant to my state's laws.


*In my experience, the main reason innocent people are imprisoned or imprisoned longer than arguably they should is not corruption in a traditional sense but, instead, incompetence.

 

[Zow]

I've always wondered... can a member of the Jury use "outside knowledge" not provided as evidence or otherwise challenged in court? Like, I know a juror can't do their own research outside of the trial evidence. And a juror isn't supposed to start with outside bias. But say, maybe as an example, some case hinged on a witness testifying that they clearly saw something like a car or the suspect traveling due north on a certain north/south street, and that testimony and evidence is not disputed by the defense, but the juror just happens to know that the said street actually runs east/west and therefore the witness's testimony is fabricated. Would that outside personal knowledge be contrary to any rules? I'm guessing probably not in an overall sense, since the jury is infallible, but, it might seem contrary to typical jury instruction.

A juror can use his or her life experiences when deciding a case (like your street example). A juror cannot go do his or her independent research specific during the case like going to the scene, googling some issues raised in expert testimony (e.g. using Gally's example above a juror shouldn't starting googling alcohol absorption rates and partition ratios). The juror, instead, must decide the case using the facts presented in court but can rely on his or her own life experience while doing so.

 

[Gally]

like a car or the suspect traveling due north on a certain north/south street, and that testimony and evidence is not disputed by the defense, but the juror just happens to know that the said street actually runs east/west and therefore the witness's testimony is fabricated.

I don't think I would think this is necessarily a purposeful fabrication. If nobody is disputing the street name or actual direction it is likely an honest mistake because a ton of people are bad directionally (especially with GPS these days). Now if one side comes back and disputes the directionality or street name saying they couldn't have been going North on Main St because that road only goes E-W then it is pointing to a fabrication.

Essentially, I would need a reason to assert it was a fabrication. Does the person making the statement have any skin in the game? Why would they be purposefully fabricating something? Big difference to me between *purposely fabricating something vs an honest directionally challenged mistake.

*by using the term "fabrication" it insinuates that the falsity was done on purpose to deceive.

 

[Gally]

- "There are few things in life that we can beyond any doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any doubt but is, instead, proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt."
- "If you have any doubt, based in reason, then you must find the Defendant not guilty."
- "The government has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

I think this is why assigning a percentage is odd to me. For example, take one piece of circumstantial evidence. I may assign a percentage of that single piece as 60% likely to mean the guy is guilty. That by itself likely isn't enough to vote guilty. But when you add in 10 other pieces of circumstantial evidence all with varying degrees of liklihood from 60-99% they become additive (depending on the importance). DNA on the body, murder weapon vs car seen parked outside near the time of the crime. Not every piece of information is created equally or have the same weight.

It is a very complex equation, and you want to make sure you aren't making a mistake in either direction (guilty or innocent). I can totally see where incompetent counsel can swing things greatly one way or the other and that would be the most likely factor to someone being found guilty who was actually innocent. I would also like to think that if a juror was paying attention that seeing the ineffective counsel aspect would weigh somewhat into the decision making process on guilt or innocence (which is unfortunate that it could come to that). I hope that I could go in with an unbiased view and just use the facts/actions/etc presented for a fair outcome.

 

[Gally]

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

I think the bolded alludes to you going into a trial as already biased to innocent beyond the normal "innocent until proven guilty" directive. Already assuming corruption and not believing the prosector is forthright (you said this in a few posts along the way) so you won't believe them from the get go seems like you wouldn't make for an impartial juror.

 

[BassNBrew]

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

I think the bolded alludes to you going into a trial as already biased to innocent beyond the normal "innocent until proven guilty" directive. Already assuming corruption and not believing the prosector is forthright (you said this in a few posts along the way) so you won't believe them from the get go seems like you wouldn't make for an impartial juror.

Agreed, which is why i would get tossed.

 

[Zow]

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

I think the bolded alludes to you going into a trial as already biased to innocent beyond the normal "innocent until proven guilty" directive. Already assuming corruption and not believing the prosector is forthright (you said this in a few posts along the way) so you won't believe them from the get go seems like you wouldn't make for an impartial juror.

Yeah if he said that (though I'd do my damndest to rehabilitate him as a defense attorney) he like would be excused for cause.

 

[Gally]

(though I'd do my damndest to rehabilitate him as a defense attorney)

I bet you would. Another dishonest defense attorney trying to game the system to get those guilty guys off............hahahahahaha

 

[El Floppo]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Looking forward to @Zow weighing in.

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people in jail IMO. Maybe that's the case. That percent is closer to coin flip than 99%. By no means am I saying your perspective is wrong, just different.

I have a few here to respond. Unfortunately, at least as my jurisdiction defines it, there really isn't a percentage to assign it. That said, the following statements would be legally accurate to say in my jurisdiction as to how to define "proof beyond a reasonable doubt":

- "There are few things in life that we can beyond any doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any doubt but is, instead, proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt."
- "If you have any doubt, based in reason, then you must find the Defendant not guilty."
- "The government has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

The above are all legally approved statements (the first and third actual come from the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions). Obviously, they don't really help with a percentage. However, it may be helpful to describe two other burdens of proof that are lesser burdens of proof compared to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence - this is the civil standard generally applied when monetary damages are at stake (e.g. OJ civil suit, when Coke sues Pepsi, etc.). It can also be stated as "more likely than not" or "fifty percent plus one." So, this burden of proof give us an actual percentage, 51%, and since it is a lesser burden of proof then proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be significantly greater than 51%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence - This is the standard to sever a parent's rights to his kid. It is best defined as it is titled. To me, this is probably in that 75% range and, again, it's a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gun to my head, and though this isn't written anywhere in law, I'd say proof beyond a reasonable doubt is ~95% or so and, frankly, it should be given that it's the standard we apply to the death penalty and life in prison.

Thanks for the reply.

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

Not arguing with you there as I generally agree with your sentiment.* I just tried to objectively quantify the standard pursuant to my state's laws.


*In my experience, the main reason innocent people are imprisoned or imprisoned longer than arguably they should is not corruption in a traditional sense but, instead, incompetence.

In the murder case I jurored above, I found the whole thing pretty interesting (my first time being a juror).

The DA couldn't have been more boring and redundant- made the same points over and over again in a monotone to make her case.

The court appointed defense attorney couldn't have been more histrionic and straight out of a Law and Order episode with flailing hands, stomping of feet, crazed facial expression, raised and lowered volume for effect, etc.

he was fantastic. except... he left decent sized holes in the DA's argument that I kept waiting for him to drive counterpoints through, but didn't. it was really hard for me to to not extrapolate and use those holes as we discussed the case finally, but I knew it wasn't up to me to do that- even though I brought up the points. made me generally sad that this kid (granted, we found that he murdered another kid over a freaking jacket) got such a crap defense attorney.

between that attorney and the grandma who didn't want to convict because the murderer reminded her of a nice neighbor, made me realize the importance of serving.

 

[Gatorade]

I saw this interesting story a couple of days ago. Reese Witherspoon was on this talk show, but not sure when. She said she once served on jury duty. She was selected to serve as jury foreman. She asked them why and they said because she had a law degree. She said, " Law degree, I didn't even graduate from high school."

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Looking forward to @Zow weighing in.

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people in jail IMO. Maybe that's the case. That percent is closer to coin flip than 99%. By no means am I saying your perspective is wrong, just different.

I have a few here to respond. Unfortunately, at least as my jurisdiction defines it, there really isn't a percentage to assign it. That said, the following statements would be legally accurate to say in my jurisdiction as to how to define "proof beyond a reasonable doubt":

- "There are few things in life that we can beyond any doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any doubt but is, instead, proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt."
- "If you have any doubt, based in reason, then you must find the Defendant not guilty."
- "The government has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

The above are all legally approved statements (the first and third actual come from the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions). Obviously, they don't really help with a percentage. However, it may be helpful to describe two other burdens of proof that are lesser burdens of proof compared to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence - this is the civil standard generally applied when monetary damages are at stake (e.g. OJ civil suit, when Coke sues Pepsi, etc.). It can also be stated as "more likely than not" or "fifty percent plus one." So, this burden of proof give us an actual percentage, 51%, and since it is a lesser burden of proof then proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be significantly greater than 51%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence - This is the standard to sever a parent's rights to his kid. It is best defined as it is titled. To me, this is probably in that 75% range and, again, it's a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gun to my head, and though this isn't written anywhere in law, I'd say proof beyond a reasonable doubt is ~95% or so and, frankly, it should be given that it's the standard we apply to the death penalty and life in prison.

Thanks for the reply.

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

Not arguing with you there as I generally agree with your sentiment.* I just tried to objectively quantify the standard pursuant to my state's laws.


*In my experience, the main reason innocent people are imprisoned or imprisoned longer than arguably they should is not corruption in a traditional sense but, instead, incompetence.

In the murder case I jurored above, I found the whole thing pretty interesting (my first time being a juror).

The DA couldn't have been more boring and redundant- made the same points over and over again in a monotone to make her case.

The court appointed defense attorney couldn't have been more histrionic and straight out of a Law and Order episode with flailing hands, stomping of feet, crazed facial expression, raised and lowered volume for effect, etc.

he was fantastic. except... he left decent sized holes in the DA's argument that I kept waiting for him to drive counterpoints through, but didn't. it was really hard for me to to not extrapolate and use those holes as we discussed the case finally, but I knew it wasn't up to me to do that- even though I brought up the points. made me generally sad that this kid (granted, we found that he murdered another kid over a freaking jacket) got such a crap defense attorney.

between that attorney and the grandma who didn't want to convict because the murderer reminded her of a nice neighbor, made me realize the importance of serving.

For me, if the state failed to close holes in its case, there should be no need for the defense to point that out and jurors are free to find reasonable doubt. The burden is on the state to prove its case and meet its very high burden. Theoretically it would be fine for the defense to simply rest and not present any evidence if they felt the state had not met its burden. That said, it would be strange for the defense atty not to discuss this in his closing argument and drive the point home.

I only do civil cases where the burden of proof at trial is "preponderance of the evidence" - which essentially means you have to prove your case or your defense by 51%. We know jurors always bring personal bias, knowledge and experience to their deliberations but try to suss those out in voir dire and then strike the ones we feel work against us and hope the good ones stay on. In my last trial I had a guy on the jury who had direct professional experience with the main factual topic in the case (large truck hauling, maintenance issues) and was personally very familiar with the main defendant entity we were suing (a large waste management company.) We were happy to have him on the jury but it turned out he hated our case. We won at trial, but he was the lone dissenter (civil trials only need 5/6, not unanimity.) I tracked him down in the parking lot after trial and we had an interesting discussion. I was shocked he wasn't able to persuade the others, but he did manage to kill much of the damages we were seeking.

 

[The Z Machine]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Looking forward to @Zow weighing in.

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people in jail IMO. Maybe that's the case. That percent is closer to coin flip than 99%. By no means am I saying your perspective is wrong, just different.

I have a few here to respond. Unfortunately, at least as my jurisdiction defines it, there really isn't a percentage to assign it. That said, the following statements would be legally accurate to say in my jurisdiction as to how to define "proof beyond a reasonable doubt":

- "There are few things in life that we can beyond any doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any doubt but is, instead, proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt."
- "If you have any doubt, based in reason, then you must find the Defendant not guilty."
- "The government has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

The above are all legally approved statements (the first and third actual come from the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions). Obviously, they don't really help with a percentage. However, it may be helpful to describe two other burdens of proof that are lesser burdens of proof compared to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence - this is the civil standard generally applied when monetary damages are at stake (e.g. OJ civil suit, when Coke sues Pepsi, etc.). It can also be stated as "more likely than not" or "fifty percent plus one." So, this burden of proof give us an actual percentage, 51%, and since it is a lesser burden of proof then proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be significantly greater than 51%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence - This is the standard to sever a parent's rights to his kid. It is best defined as it is titled. To me, this is probably in that 75% range and, again, it's a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gun to my head, and though this isn't written anywhere in law, I'd say proof beyond a reasonable doubt is ~95% or so and, frankly, it should be given that it's the standard we apply to the death penalty and life in prison.

Thanks for the reply.

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

Not arguing with you there as I generally agree with your sentiment.* I just tried to objectively quantify the standard pursuant to my state's laws.


*In my experience, the main reason innocent people are imprisoned or imprisoned longer than arguably they should is not corruption in a traditional sense but, instead, incompetence.

In the murder case I jurored above, I found the whole thing pretty interesting (my first time being a juror).

The DA couldn't have been more boring and redundant- made the same points over and over again in a monotone to make her case.

The court appointed defense attorney couldn't have been more histrionic and straight out of a Law and Order episode with flailing hands, stomping of feet, crazed facial expression, raised and lowered volume for effect, etc.

he was fantastic. except... he left decent sized holes in the DA's argument that I kept waiting for him to drive counterpoints through, but didn't. it was really hard for me to to not extrapolate and use those holes as we discussed the case finally, but I knew it wasn't up to me to do that- even though I brought up the points. made me generally sad that this kid (granted, we found that he murdered another kid over a freaking jacket) got such a crap defense attorney.

between that attorney and the grandma who didn't want to convict because the murderer reminded her of a nice neighbor, made me realize the importance of serving.

For me, if the state failed to close holes in its case, there should be no need for the defense to point that out and jurors are free to find reasonable doubt. The burden is on the state to prove its case and meet its very high burden. Theoretically it would be fine for the defense to simply rest and not present any evidence if they felt the state had not met its burden. That said, it would be strange for the defense atty not to discuss this in his closing argument and drive the point home.

I only do civil cases where the burden of proof at trial is "preponderance of the evidence" - which essentially means you have to prove your case or your defense by 51%. We know jurors always bring personal bias, knowledge and experience to their deliberations but try to suss those out in voir dire and then strike the ones we feel work against us and hope the good ones stay on. In my last trial I had a guy on the jury who had direct professional experience with the main factual topic in the case (large truck hauling, maintenance issues) and was personally very familiar with the main defendant entity we were suing (a large waste management company.) We were happy to have him on the jury but it turned out he hated our case. We won at trial, but he was the lone dissenter (civil trials only need 5/6, not unanimity.) I tracked him down in the parking lot after trial and we had an interesting discussion. I was shocked he wasn't able to persuade the others, but he did manage to kill much of the damages we were seeking.

What did he hate about your case?

 

[The Z Machine]

I've said this before about jury duty, I only want to be on a white collar crime jury. I don't need to be traumatized by violent stuff happening in my city. But white collar crime? Hell yeah, I'd be taking notes like I'm getting paid by Cliffs.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Looking forward to @Zow weighing in.

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people in jail IMO. Maybe that's the case. That percent is closer to coin flip than 99%. By no means am I saying your perspective is wrong, just different.

I have a few here to respond. Unfortunately, at least as my jurisdiction defines it, there really isn't a percentage to assign it. That said, the following statements would be legally accurate to say in my jurisdiction as to how to define "proof beyond a reasonable doubt":

- "There are few things in life that we can beyond any doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any doubt but is, instead, proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt."
- "If you have any doubt, based in reason, then you must find the Defendant not guilty."
- "The government has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

The above are all legally approved statements (the first and third actual come from the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions). Obviously, they don't really help with a percentage. However, it may be helpful to describe two other burdens of proof that are lesser burdens of proof compared to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence - this is the civil standard generally applied when monetary damages are at stake (e.g. OJ civil suit, when Coke sues Pepsi, etc.). It can also be stated as "more likely than not" or "fifty percent plus one." So, this burden of proof give us an actual percentage, 51%, and since it is a lesser burden of proof then proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be significantly greater than 51%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence - This is the standard to sever a parent's rights to his kid. It is best defined as it is titled. To me, this is probably in that 75% range and, again, it's a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gun to my head, and though this isn't written anywhere in law, I'd say proof beyond a reasonable doubt is ~95% or so and, frankly, it should be given that it's the standard we apply to the death penalty and life in prison.

Thanks for the reply.

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

Not arguing with you there as I generally agree with your sentiment.* I just tried to objectively quantify the standard pursuant to my state's laws.


*In my experience, the main reason innocent people are imprisoned or imprisoned longer than arguably they should is not corruption in a traditional sense but, instead, incompetence.

In the murder case I jurored above, I found the whole thing pretty interesting (my first time being a juror).

The DA couldn't have been more boring and redundant- made the same points over and over again in a monotone to make her case.

The court appointed defense attorney couldn't have been more histrionic and straight out of a Law and Order episode with flailing hands, stomping of feet, crazed facial expression, raised and lowered volume for effect, etc.

he was fantastic. except... he left decent sized holes in the DA's argument that I kept waiting for him to drive counterpoints through, but didn't. it was really hard for me to to not extrapolate and use those holes as we discussed the case finally, but I knew it wasn't up to me to do that- even though I brought up the points. made me generally sad that this kid (granted, we found that he murdered another kid over a freaking jacket) got such a crap defense attorney.

between that attorney and the grandma who didn't want to convict because the murderer reminded her of a nice neighbor, made me realize the importance of serving.

For me, if the state failed to close holes in its case, there should be no need for the defense to point that out and jurors are free to find reasonable doubt. The burden is on the state to prove its case and meet its very high burden. Theoretically it would be fine for the defense to simply rest and not present any evidence if they felt the state had not met its burden. That said, it would be strange for the defense atty not to discuss this in his closing argument and drive the point home.

I only do civil cases where the burden of proof at trial is "preponderance of the evidence" - which essentially means you have to prove your case or your defense by 51%. We know jurors always bring personal bias, knowledge and experience to their deliberations but try to suss those out in voir dire and then strike the ones we feel work against us and hope the good ones stay on. In my last trial I had a guy on the jury who had direct professional experience with the main factual topic in the case (large truck hauling, maintenance issues) and was personally very familiar with the main defendant entity we were suing (a large waste management company.) We were happy to have him on the jury but it turned out he hated our case. We won at trial, but he was the lone dissenter (civil trials only need 5/6, not unanimity.) I tracked him down in the parking lot after trial and we had an interesting discussion. I was shocked he wasn't able to persuade the others, but he did manage to kill much of the damages we were seeking.

What did he hate about your case?

The short answer is that he didn't believe our witnesses' testimony. He formed his own opinion based on the evidence, and he was probably right. In the end, he would have given our client nothing, whereas the jury verdict gave us a nice win albeit less than what we asked them to award. We call it a 'win' because the verdict was well above our last pre-trial settlement demand to the defense, which they rejected. The reality is I think we could have done better and I learned some good lessons.

The funniest thing about this case is that I learned something in our hotel room during trial while going over a key witnesses testimony late one night. He was testifying the next morning - not really a key witness but he had a few important things to add to our case. I was showing him some pictures we were using as exhibits and he casually pointed something out that I'd not known. So I added it to my outline and had him explain it on the stand the next day, but I didn't think much of it. In my discussion with the juror after trial in the parking lot, he mentioned off-the-cuff that if not for that piece of testimony the entire jury would have given our client nothing. They fixated on something I didn't think was very important. That is the serendipitous nature of jury trials.

 

[Gally]

They fixated on something I didn't think was very important. That is the serendipitous nature of jury trials.

That's why you have to hire Dr. Bull. Those jury whisperers give you that info. It always works on TV like that....hahahahaha

 

[Zow]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Looking forward to @Zow weighing in.

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people in jail IMO. Maybe that's the case. That percent is closer to coin flip than 99%. By no means am I saying your perspective is wrong, just different.

I have a few here to respond. Unfortunately, at least as my jurisdiction defines it, there really isn't a percentage to assign it. That said, the following statements would be legally accurate to say in my jurisdiction as to how to define "proof beyond a reasonable doubt":

- "There are few things in life that we can beyond any doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any doubt but is, instead, proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt."
- "If you have any doubt, based in reason, then you must find the Defendant not guilty."
- "The government has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

The above are all legally approved statements (the first and third actual come from the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions). Obviously, they don't really help with a percentage. However, it may be helpful to describe two other burdens of proof that are lesser burdens of proof compared to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence - this is the civil standard generally applied when monetary damages are at stake (e.g. OJ civil suit, when Coke sues Pepsi, etc.). It can also be stated as "more likely than not" or "fifty percent plus one." So, this burden of proof give us an actual percentage, 51%, and since it is a lesser burden of proof then proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be significantly greater than 51%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence - This is the standard to sever a parent's rights to his kid. It is best defined as it is titled. To me, this is probably in that 75% range and, again, it's a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gun to my head, and though this isn't written anywhere in law, I'd say proof beyond a reasonable doubt is ~95% or so and, frankly, it should be given that it's the standard we apply to the death penalty and life in prison.

Thanks for the reply.

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

Not arguing with you there as I generally agree with your sentiment.* I just tried to objectively quantify the standard pursuant to my state's laws.


*In my experience, the main reason innocent people are imprisoned or imprisoned longer than arguably they should is not corruption in a traditional sense but, instead, incompetence.

In the murder case I jurored above, I found the whole thing pretty interesting (my first time being a juror).

The DA couldn't have been more boring and redundant- made the same points over and over again in a monotone to make her case.

The court appointed defense attorney couldn't have been more histrionic and straight out of a Law and Order episode with flailing hands, stomping of feet, crazed facial expression, raised and lowered volume for effect, etc.

he was fantastic. except... he left decent sized holes in the DA's argument that I kept waiting for him to drive counterpoints through, but didn't. it was really hard for me to to not extrapolate and use those holes as we discussed the case finally, but I knew it wasn't up to me to do that- even though I brought up the points. made me generally sad that this kid (granted, we found that he murdered another kid over a freaking jacket) got such a crap defense attorney.

between that attorney and the grandma who didn't want to convict because the murderer reminded her of a nice neighbor, made me realize the importance of serving.

For me, if the state failed to close holes in its case, there should be no need for the defense to point that out and jurors are free to find reasonable doubt. The burden is on the state to prove its case and meet its very high burden. Theoretically it would be fine for the defense to simply rest and not present any evidence if they felt the state had not met its burden. That said, it would be strange for the defense atty not to discuss this in his closing argument and drive the point home.

I only do civil cases where the burden of proof at trial is "preponderance of the evidence" - which essentially means you have to prove your case or your defense by 51%. We know jurors always bring personal bias, knowledge and experience to their deliberations but try to suss those out in voir dire and then strike the ones we feel work against us and hope the good ones stay on. In my last trial I had a guy on the jury who had direct professional experience with the main factual topic in the case (large truck hauling, maintenance issues) and was personally very familiar with the main defendant entity we were suing (a large waste management company.) We were happy to have him on the jury but it turned out he hated our case. We won at trial, but he was the lone dissenter (civil trials only need 5/6, not unanimity.) I tracked him down in the parking lot after trial and we had an interesting discussion. I was shocked he wasn't able to persuade the others, but he did manage to kill much of the damages we were seeking.

What did he hate about your case?

The short answer is that he didn't believe our witnesses' testimony. He formed his own opinion based on the evidence, and he was probably right. In the end, he would have given our client nothing, whereas the jury verdict gave us a nice win albeit less than what we asked them to award. We call it a 'win' because the verdict was well above our last pre-trial settlement demand to the defense, which they rejected. The reality is I think we could have done better and I learned some good lessons.

The funniest thing about this case is that I learned something in our hotel room during trial while going over a key witnesses testimony late one night. He was testifying the next morning - not really a key witness but he had a few important things to add to our case. I was showing him some pictures we were using as exhibits and he casually pointed something out that I'd not known. So I added it to my outline and had him explain it on the stand the next day, but I didn't think much of it. In my discussion with the juror after trial in the parking lot, he mentioned off-the-cuff that if not for that piece of testimony the entire jury would have given our client nothing. They fixated on something I didn't think was very important. That is the serendipitous nature of jury trials.

As to the bold... so an attorney's fees award then or no?

As to the second paragraph, you nicely illustrate just how unpredictable juries can be or, more accurately, how they can fixate on facts that the lawyers and court simply do not think is relevant themselves. I once had a jury trial where the cop literally watched and videotaped my client very much appearing to steal something. Cop seemed very credible and testified that way. I had advised my client up to accept a plea and I went in with genuinely no defense. We nonetheless won and, absolutely dumbfounded, I spoke with a couple of jurors and they basically contrived some duress defense. For those not knowing what this means, basically the jury - despite no facts in evidence supporting this defense (or else I would have pled it and argued it in my case) other than a singular mention that there a third party in my client's car at the time - decided that somebody forced my client to steal the item(s). Obviously I appreciate a win, but I still laugh at this to this day.

 

[Gally]

I spoke with a couple of jurors and they basically contrived some duress defense. For those not knowing what this means, basically the jury - despite no facts in evidence supporting this defense (or else I would have pled it and argued it in my case) other than a singular mention that there a third party in my client's car at the time - decided that somebody forced my client to steal the item(s). Obviously I appreciate a win, but I still laugh at this to this day.

Was the juror @BassNBrew ?

(kidding, kidding).

 

[BassNBrew]

I've probably watched too any of these videos...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

But it just sickens me that DAs file charges that the evidence doesn't support. Stuff like this is why I would go into the case assuming that it's very possible the cops or the DA are lying. Even if that's only the case 5% of the time, those defendants subject to that 5% deserve a fair shake also. If you don't watch the video above, the witness, cops, and DA all say the defendant was intoxicated. The hospital said negative, he has dementia, but he's still charged with being intoxicated. You have three distinct entities making a claim without proof and the defendant has to prove his innocence. It's supposed to be the other way around.

 

[Ilov80s]

I've said this before about jury duty, I only want to be on a white collar crime jury. I don't need to be traumatized by violent stuff happening in my city. But white collar crime? Hell yeah, I'd be taking notes like I'm getting paid by Cliffs.

Got on a weeklong case in October. It was sad but was super interesting. I would love to do it again (lucky enough to have a job that paid me in full and coworkers who made sure that they covered all my responsibilities).

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Looking forward to @Zow weighing in.

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people in jail IMO. Maybe that's the case. That percent is closer to coin flip than 99%. By no means am I saying your perspective is wrong, just different.

I have a few here to respond. Unfortunately, at least as my jurisdiction defines it, there really isn't a percentage to assign it. That said, the following statements would be legally accurate to say in my jurisdiction as to how to define "proof beyond a reasonable doubt":

- "There are few things in life that we can beyond any doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any doubt but is, instead, proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt."
- "If you have any doubt, based in reason, then you must find the Defendant not guilty."
- "The government has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

The above are all legally approved statements (the first and third actual come from the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions). Obviously, they don't really help with a percentage. However, it may be helpful to describe two other burdens of proof that are lesser burdens of proof compared to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence - this is the civil standard generally applied when monetary damages are at stake (e.g. OJ civil suit, when Coke sues Pepsi, etc.). It can also be stated as "more likely than not" or "fifty percent plus one." So, this burden of proof give us an actual percentage, 51%, and since it is a lesser burden of proof then proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be significantly greater than 51%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence - This is the standard to sever a parent's rights to his kid. It is best defined as it is titled. To me, this is probably in that 75% range and, again, it's a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gun to my head, and though this isn't written anywhere in law, I'd say proof beyond a reasonable doubt is ~95% or so and, frankly, it should be given that it's the standard we apply to the death penalty and life in prison.

Thanks for the reply.

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

Not arguing with you there as I generally agree with your sentiment.* I just tried to objectively quantify the standard pursuant to my state's laws.


*In my experience, the main reason innocent people are imprisoned or imprisoned longer than arguably they should is not corruption in a traditional sense but, instead, incompetence.

In the murder case I jurored above, I found the whole thing pretty interesting (my first time being a juror).

The DA couldn't have been more boring and redundant- made the same points over and over again in a monotone to make her case.

The court appointed defense attorney couldn't have been more histrionic and straight out of a Law and Order episode with flailing hands, stomping of feet, crazed facial expression, raised and lowered volume for effect, etc.

he was fantastic. except... he left decent sized holes in the DA's argument that I kept waiting for him to drive counterpoints through, but didn't. it was really hard for me to to not extrapolate and use those holes as we discussed the case finally, but I knew it wasn't up to me to do that- even though I brought up the points. made me generally sad that this kid (granted, we found that he murdered another kid over a freaking jacket) got such a crap defense attorney.

between that attorney and the grandma who didn't want to convict because the murderer reminded her of a nice neighbor, made me realize the importance of serving.

For me, if the state failed to close holes in its case, there should be no need for the defense to point that out and jurors are free to find reasonable doubt. The burden is on the state to prove its case and meet its very high burden. Theoretically it would be fine for the defense to simply rest and not present any evidence if they felt the state had not met its burden. That said, it would be strange for the defense atty not to discuss this in his closing argument and drive the point home.

I only do civil cases where the burden of proof at trial is "preponderance of the evidence" - which essentially means you have to prove your case or your defense by 51%. We know jurors always bring personal bias, knowledge and experience to their deliberations but try to suss those out in voir dire and then strike the ones we feel work against us and hope the good ones stay on. In my last trial I had a guy on the jury who had direct professional experience with the main factual topic in the case (large truck hauling, maintenance issues) and was personally very familiar with the main defendant entity we were suing (a large waste management company.) We were happy to have him on the jury but it turned out he hated our case. We won at trial, but he was the lone dissenter (civil trials only need 5/6, not unanimity.) I tracked him down in the parking lot after trial and we had an interesting discussion. I was shocked he wasn't able to persuade the others, but he did manage to kill much of the damages we were seeking.

What did he hate about your case?

The short answer is that he didn't believe our witnesses' testimony. He formed his own opinion based on the evidence, and he was probably right. In the end, he would have given our client nothing, whereas the jury verdict gave us a nice win albeit less than what we asked them to award. We call it a 'win' because the verdict was well above our last pre-trial settlement demand to the defense, which they rejected. The reality is I think we could have done better and I learned some good lessons.

The funniest thing about this case is that I learned something in our hotel room during trial while going over a key witnesses testimony late one night. He was testifying the next morning - not really a key witness but he had a few important things to add to our case. I was showing him some pictures we were using as exhibits and he casually pointed something out that I'd not known. So I added it to my outline and had him explain it on the stand the next day, but I didn't think much of it. In my discussion with the juror after trial in the parking lot, he mentioned off-the-cuff that if not for that piece of testimony the entire jury would have given our client nothing. They fixated on something I didn't think was very important. That is the serendipitous nature of jury trials.

As to the bold... so an attorney's fees award then or no?

As to the second paragraph, you nicely illustrate just how unpredictable juries can be or, more accurately, how they can fixate on facts that the lawyers and court simply do not think is relevant themselves. I once had a jury trial where the cop literally watched and videotaped my client very much appearing to steal something. Cop seemed very credible and testified that way. I had advised my client up to accept a plea and I went in with genuinely no defense. We nonetheless won and, absolutely dumbfounded, I spoke with a couple of jurors and they basically contrived some duress defense. For those not knowing what this means, basically the jury - despite no facts in evidence supporting this defense (or else I would have pled it and argued it in my case) other than a singular mention that there a third party in my client's car at the time - decided that somebody forced my client to steal the item(s). Obviously I appreciate a win, but I still laugh at this to this day.

No atty fees in my state, but we were awarded double costs under our statute because we filed a formal offer of settlement with the Court and exceeded that number. The defense had a decent appealable issue we had to deal with so there were some post-verdict settlement discussions to get it all done. This was not a huge case but some crazy #### happened immediately before and at trial. We have some good stories to tell, and they are getting better through embellishment as time passes.

 

[Zow]

Beyond a reasonable doubt to me means greater than 99% chance

Hmmm. I never really thought about reasonable doubt like this. I think 99% is much more than "reasonable" doubt. That is essentially zero doubt. There is a difference to me. The more I think about it I don't think I could put a percentage basis on reasonable doubt. There are too many factors that go into that don't equate to a percentage to me. If forced I would probably be around 70-75% but it's an odd concept in my mind. To me it is more about what is believable or if there are undisputed facts (stipulations) and what those mean to the issue.

I will have to think about this some more. What does @Zow have to say about reasonable doubt percentage? Is there a law equivalency statement? I don't think there is but I wonder how you address it.

Looking forward to @Zow weighing in.

70-75% would mean a lot of innocent people in jail IMO. Maybe that's the case. That percent is closer to coin flip than 99%. By no means am I saying your perspective is wrong, just different.

I have a few here to respond. Unfortunately, at least as my jurisdiction defines it, there really isn't a percentage to assign it. That said, the following statements would be legally accurate to say in my jurisdiction as to how to define "proof beyond a reasonable doubt":

- "There are few things in life that we can beyond any doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof beyond any doubt but is, instead, proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt."
- "If you have any doubt, based in reason, then you must find the Defendant not guilty."
- "The government has to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

The above are all legally approved statements (the first and third actual come from the Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions). Obviously, they don't really help with a percentage. However, it may be helpful to describe two other burdens of proof that are lesser burdens of proof compared to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence - this is the civil standard generally applied when monetary damages are at stake (e.g. OJ civil suit, when Coke sues Pepsi, etc.). It can also be stated as "more likely than not" or "fifty percent plus one." So, this burden of proof give us an actual percentage, 51%, and since it is a lesser burden of proof then proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be significantly greater than 51%.
2. Clear and convincing evidence - This is the standard to sever a parent's rights to his kid. It is best defined as it is titled. To me, this is probably in that 75% range and, again, it's a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gun to my head, and though this isn't written anywhere in law, I'd say proof beyond a reasonable doubt is ~95% or so and, frankly, it should be given that it's the standard we apply to the death penalty and life in prison.

Thanks for the reply.

Not high enough IMO with someone's freedom at stake and the system being both corrupt in many instances and tilted in favor of the those with means in most instances.

Not arguing with you there as I generally agree with your sentiment.* I just tried to objectively quantify the standard pursuant to my state's laws.


*In my experience, the main reason innocent people are imprisoned or imprisoned longer than arguably they should is not corruption in a traditional sense but, instead, incompetence.

In the murder case I jurored above, I found the whole thing pretty interesting (my first time being a juror).

The DA couldn't have been more boring and redundant- made the same points over and over again in a monotone to make her case.

The court appointed defense attorney couldn't have been more histrionic and straight out of a Law and Order episode with flailing hands, stomping of feet, crazed facial expression, raised and lowered volume for effect, etc.

he was fantastic. except... he left decent sized holes in the DA's argument that I kept waiting for him to drive counterpoints through, but didn't. it was really hard for me to to not extrapolate and use those holes as we discussed the case finally, but I knew it wasn't up to me to do that- even though I brought up the points. made me generally sad that this kid (granted, we found that he murdered another kid over a freaking jacket) got such a crap defense attorney.

between that attorney and the grandma who didn't want to convict because the murderer reminded her of a nice neighbor, made me realize the importance of serving.

For me, if the state failed to close holes in its case, there should be no need for the defense to point that out and jurors are free to find reasonable doubt. The burden is on the state to prove its case and meet its very high burden. Theoretically it would be fine for the defense to simply rest and not present any evidence if they felt the state had not met its burden. That said, it would be strange for the defense atty not to discuss this in his closing argument and drive the point home.

I only do civil cases where the burden of proof at trial is "preponderance of the evidence" - which essentially means you have to prove your case or your defense by 51%. We know jurors always bring personal bias, knowledge and experience to their deliberations but try to suss those out in voir dire and then strike the ones we feel work against us and hope the good ones stay on. In my last trial I had a guy on the jury who had direct professional experience with the main factual topic in the case (large truck hauling, maintenance issues) and was personally very familiar with the main defendant entity we were suing (a large waste management company.) We were happy to have him on the jury but it turned out he hated our case. We won at trial, but he was the lone dissenter (civil trials only need 5/6, not unanimity.) I tracked him down in the parking lot after trial and we had an interesting discussion. I was shocked he wasn't able to persuade the others, but he did manage to kill much of the damages we were seeking.

What did he hate about your case?

The short answer is that he didn't believe our witnesses' testimony. He formed his own opinion based on the evidence, and he was probably right. In the end, he would have given our client nothing, whereas the jury verdict gave us a nice win albeit less than what we asked them to award. We call it a 'win' because the verdict was well above our last pre-trial settlement demand to the defense, which they rejected. The reality is I think we could have done better and I learned some good lessons.

The funniest thing about this case is that I learned something in our hotel room during trial while going over a key witnesses testimony late one night. He was testifying the next morning - not really a key witness but he had a few important things to add to our case. I was showing him some pictures we were using as exhibits and he casually pointed something out that I'd not known. So I added it to my outline and had him explain it on the stand the next day, but I didn't think much of it. In my discussion with the juror after trial in the parking lot, he mentioned off-the-cuff that if not for that piece of testimony the entire jury would have given our client nothing. They fixated on something I didn't think was very important. That is the serendipitous nature of jury trials.

As to the bold... so an attorney's fees award then or no?

As to the second paragraph, you nicely illustrate just how unpredictable juries can be or, more accurately, how they can fixate on facts that the lawyers and court simply do not think is relevant themselves. I once had a jury trial where the cop literally watched and videotaped my client very much appearing to steal something. Cop seemed very credible and testified that way. I had advised my client up to accept a plea and I went in with genuinely no defense. We nonetheless won and, absolutely dumbfounded, I spoke with a couple of jurors and they basically contrived some duress defense. For those not knowing what this means, basically the jury - despite no facts in evidence supporting this defense (or else I would have pled it and argued it in my case) other than a singular mention that there a third party in my client's car at the time - decided that somebody forced my client to steal the item(s). Obviously I appreciate a win, but I still laugh at this to this day.

No atty fees in my state, but we were awarded double costs under our statute because we filed a formal offer of settlement with the Court and exceeded that number. The defense had a decent appealable issue we had to deal with so there were some post-verdict settlement discussions to get it all done. This was not a huge case but some crazy #### happened immediately before and at trial. We have some good stories to tell, and they are getting better through embellishment as time passes.

Ah. In my state the bold likely would have triggered an automatic award of atty fees and costs (I think dependent on the type of claim, I don't do much civil).

Also, no embellishment necessary with most of the stories!

 

[BassNBrew]

I've probably watched too any of these videos...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

But it just sickens me that DAs file charges that the evidence doesn't support. Stuff like this is why I would go into the case assuming that it's very possible the cops or the DA are lying. Even if that's only the case 5% of the time, those defendants subject to that 5% deserve a fair shake also. If you don't watch the video above, the witness, cops, and DA all say the defendant was intoxicated. The hospital said negative, he has dementia, but he's still charged with being intoxicated. You have three distinct entities making a claim without proof and the defendant has to prove his innocence. It's supposed to be the other way around.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Now the police chief and mayor weigh in support of this. Update video has footages from the hospital and more fabrications going into the police report.

Yup...I have a reasonable doubt that your charges are accurate.

 

[fatness]

A Rensselaer County town justice has resigned from the bench after being charged by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct with trying to evade jury duty by claiming he could not be impartial because he was convinced that everyone who appeared in court to face charges “did something wrong.”

Appearing for testimony at the state commission on July 16, Snyder doubled down, stating that litigants who appeared before him “did something wrong” and “I know they’re guilty because they did something wrong. That’s how they got a ticket,” and “That’s the reason why they got the ticket to appear in court, because they did something wrong.”
“Were you just trying to get out of grand jury empanelment?” he was asked at one point.
“Yes, because of my grandkids,” he replied, explaining he had to watch his grandson during the day.

 

[Zow]

A Rensselaer County town justice has resigned from the bench after being charged by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct with trying to evade jury duty by claiming he could not be impartial because he was convinced that everyone who appeared in court to face charges “did something wrong.”

Appearing for testimony at the state commission on July 16, Snyder doubled down, stating that litigants who appeared before him “did something wrong” and “I know they’re guilty because they did something wrong. That’s how they got a ticket,” and “That’s the reason why they got the ticket to appear in court, because they did something wrong.”
“Were you just trying to get out of grand jury empanelment?” he was asked at one point.
“Yes, because of my grandkids,” he replied, explaining he had to watch his grandson during the day.

Good. Assuming that article is accurate, that guy should not be involved in the legal system.

 

[Tecumseh]

Currently sitting in a court room waiting to be called upstairs for voir dire. AMA?