It is not required that the state prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense----the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it.a few weeks ago, i was in a bar listening to a young lawyer explain the logistics of her defense cases to me. after a deep line of questioning and the mental acrobatics that followed, one crystalline fact rose to the surface: our justice system has nothing to do with justice. it's a chess game of revealing certain facts and flashing them in front of the jury box like a red cape, hoping that they don't ask questions beyond that. indeed, to my knowledge, jurors aren't even allowed to ask questions to counsel.
then how do you quell reasonable doubt? if the base of our legal system is that people are innocent until proven guilty and attorneys must prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, how can someone who takes their responsibility as a juror seriously be true to their conscience without bringing up the questions that are on their minds as individuals. in florida, a mistrial was called when 8 jurors used their cellular phones to research whether a defendant had illegally sold prescription drugs online. and why not? if the information is publicly available, isn't it simply researching common knowledge?
but this is where we get into the strategy of defense, what can and cannot be included as evidence based on how it was collected and so forth. the young lawyer that told me about her case was completely candid about what she knew and was keeping from the jury. if she was forced to give up all relevant information, which objective justice would require, there would be little strategy left to be had. but isn't that the fair way to do things? shouldn't law be about justice not about trickery?
Posts
5 comments:
so crazy that i decided to come to your blog today of all days because I was just thinking the EXACT same thing. the NYT ran an article about the twitter incident but also about how the most threatening aspect of easily accessible media is that jurors can double check facts. i think they used examples of someone looking up legal terms and mapping distances to calculate travel, among others. the fact that that is an issue kinda infuriates me. i mean, honestly, if i didn't understand what "libel" or some other term meant and i was a juror, i would hope to have the opportunity to at least find out so i could make an educated decision. i'd also like to be able to double check facts, including how long it would take a criminal to get from point a to point b. i see absolutely no benefit in keeping jurors ignorant. except, of course, to maintain the game of justice.
all that said, twittering/myspacing/facebooking deliberations is probably not a good idea. even though it would've been extremely juicy and lucrative at something like the OJ trial.
@tiffany! that NYT article was my inspiration for this post, alongside the chat with the young lawyer. it's true, broadcasting the inter-workings of the trial on twitter is unacceptable. but i think there's something to be said for a rational person who wants to make an informed decision looking up terms with which they're unfamiliar or google mapping the intersection in question.
i understand that jurors shouldn't use evidence that was found illegally or op-eds they find on the Internet to make their decisions. perhaps the reason to keep them from looking up things is to create a controlled environment for the trial. i still think it's flawed.
I think there's a wise reason for the framed, contained-knowledge environment in the courtroom.
Consider the industry we're talking about (law) and how much money churns in the environment. If jurors were able to do Google searches and explore evidence outside of the courtroom, what do you think the reaction of the "justice industry" would be?
Yeah. :) I have no doubt that there would be -massive- amounts of disinformation spread. Lawyers would send PR reps to every blogger known to man. Google and its search algorithm would become as much an arbiter of the law and justice as anything that goes on in court.
I think there's defined limits to how far the 'information age' paradigm can spread without some things just completely breaking at the seams. Fair enough that we could explore different ways to mete justice in society, but that's going to require Constitutional amendment and a lot of hand-wringing. Not exactly something that there's a ton of will to support in the country right now (if ever.)
By the way, Emily, I came across your blog on Spot.Us. I'm a researcher at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville and I'm doing some interview-based research on Spot.Us. I'm trying to find people to talk to and haven't had much luck; if you're interested, drop me a line: mhardy5 (at sign goes here!) utk.edu. It wouldn't take too much of your time, 30 minutes at most.
Objective justice? hmmmm... Well, I think that is the idea. I had an interesting court case go down involving myself where I was charged with assault for punching a Marine in a street fight. Fist fighting people you don't know isn't a good idea, but it is not necessarily assualt, it is affray (by law). Anyhow, I was charged with assault because I landed the first and only punches, even though the guy was with another guy and they were yelling and laughing at my sister, and threatening to beat up my brother in law. It was obviously escalating into a fight, and so I went with it.
It so happened that the cop was a former Marine, and believe it or not, after formerly charging both of us with affray the night of the incident, he changed the charge to assault the next day after only listening to the Marine's story and not mine.
Court day: I get convicted of assault because the cop shows up and actually sits at the prosecuting table and brings about ten of his cop buddies to sit there and try to intimidate my witnesses.
I felt some degree of guilt only because I thought it was a dumb way to lose a lot of money on legal fees and medical bills, and a waste of a lot of people's time and energy. I expected the same guilt from the Marine. There was none. My own innate sense of "objective justice" that I hold myself accountable to, essentially fucked me. Actually, let me rephrase that... my expectation that the Marine, the cop, and hell anyone values justice was what fucked me.
Justice is a virtue, and one that individuals can gain power from, but it's not a good idea to expect that everyone should live up to it (Kant), and rather just expect most people not to. I think most judges, and people of power have to exhibit a certain degree of justice or else they wouldn't be there, or they won't last long. Lawyers are about as ethical as supermarket clerks or bartenders.
...Great blog by the way.
Post a Comment