![]() ![]() It also examines the options numerous courts use of refusing to explain reasonable doubt to juries or explaining it in multiple, inconsistent, ways. The article examines a modern alternative suggested by the Federal Judicial Center, which attempts to use contemporary language to convey the meaning of reasonable doubt set forth in a series of appellate decisions. ![]() It also notes that slight and often unintended variations in boilerplate statements, such as the one-word shift from "fail to act" to "hesitate to act," can make instructions inconsistent to the point of making one clearly pro-prosecution and the other clearly pro-defense. The article examines the history of such instructions in federal and state courts, noting that the meaning of some phrases common in pattern instructions, such as "moral certainty," have changed over time. The article addresses psychological and social science literature on how lay juries are able to understand and to apply the reasonable doubt standard. It establishes that without accurate and understandable jury instructions, the constitutional rights both to a jury trial and to the reasonable doubt standard are ineffective. This article explores jury instructions and instruction practices concerning reasonable doubt. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |