Voiceover sample for free subscribers
Does anyone else feel like they’ve been in law school over the last year since the first ever American president was indicted on 91 felony counts in four jurisdictions? For me, it has been both an enlightening and aggravating education. Enlightening in that I’m learning something new. Aggravating in that, by design, our legal system is more complicated than it needs to be. Of course, that is my humble opinion but I’m sure I’m not alone in that opinion. The many miscarriages of justice that we have experienced in this country also seem to bear out that opinion. While I feel like I’ve received a more in-depth education on the law and the art of litigation from watching the coverage of these current legal proceedings, this is not the first time I’ve aired my frustration.
I am a firm believer that if a jury of one’s peers, not a jury of lawyers or legal scholars, but a jury of one’s peers is supposed to deliver a verdict on criminal trials and civil lawsuits, then the intent of this arrangement is that the law is meant to be easily understood by the common man and the common woman. Not merely the minuscule percentage of the population that holds a juris doctorate. The common man and the common woman are supposed to parse out the testimonies, the evidence and the law to render a just verdict.
As the trial for 34 of the aforementioned 91 counts is nearing its end, the question on the table is has the prosecution proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course the jury’s answer to that question through its verdict is the only answer that matters. And as much as those in the courtroom report on how the jury seems to behave and respond throughout the trial, just about every lawyer will tell you that it is not wise to try to predict what a jury will decide. And from our national experience with so many miscarriages of justice, the common man and the common woman will tell you that it is not wise to try to predict what a jury will decide.
It’s a rather perplexing matter what a jury comprised of the common man and the common woman operating within a court of law considers to be reasonable doubt; compared to what the common man and the common woman within the court of public opinion (those that often follow the trial) consider to be reasonable doubt in criminal cases as opposed to civil suit verdicts which is based upon the preponderance of the evidence. Add to that there is such a thing called probable cause which is all that is needed for an arrest or to acquire a warrant.
What’s the difference between the three? How do we even define reasonable? Why is a preponderance not reasonable enough? If there is reasonable doubt, doesn’t that mean there is unreasonable doubt? Let’s start with some definitions
Reasonable—sound judgment; logical; capable of rational behavior and decision-making
Unreasonable—not guided by sound judgment; irrational
Preponderance—superiority of weight, force, influence, numbers, etc; prevalence
Probable—likely to occur or prove true
When we look at the stages of law enforcement the standard of proof increases with the severity of penalty. To me this seems reasonable. With harsher penalties, the evidence needs to be strong enough to convince more people. In criminal cases, the evidence must be strong enough to unanimously convince a jury. It’s the toughest burden in and of itself. But it becomes even tougher because jurors can each decide what they consider to be reasonable doubt. Supposedly the rules of evidence and the judge’s jury instructions mitigate any variances. Yet those variances still exist and find their way into deliberation rooms.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Harmonious Balance to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.