What is beyond a reasonable doubt?
Libby jury looks for guidance on ‘reasonable doubt’ - CNN.com
The jury’s latest message may show a struggle to understand the term “reasonable doubt.” Friday’s question suggests some jurors are looking for a complete absence of doubt, while others understand that the standard of proof expected from prosecutors falls short of that.
“It could show jurors are trying to convince others you don’t need this level of evidence to find reasonable doubt,” former federal prosecutor Alex Rene said.
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, after reading the jurors’ notes, said that “there is nothing that says the government has to show that it is ‘not humanly possible’ for someone not to recall an event.”
The jury in the Libby trial has asked for clarification on reasonable doubt. I have thought about that many times. I have never been chosen for a jury, which is probably a good thing for the criminal justice system because I really don’t see how you can decide beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of just about anything. I suppose DNA results would help push me to that point but I have watched forensic shows that have convicted people on two strands of hair. Heck I lost 2 strands of hair while I was writing this sentence. I just don’t think I would be a good juror. I don’t think hearsay would move me to a guilty plea and Libby’s entire trial is he said/she said. I know eyewitness testimony wouldn’t move me at all since we have had to exonerate so many people who were convicted with eyewitness testimony and turned out to be innocent. That jury has a very big job, and I am glad I am not doing it.
Technorati Tags: courts, reasonable doubt
Filed under: Innocence, reasonable doubt
