![]() ![]() This Article identifies four common jury-instruction flaws - the important-affairs-of-life analogy, the alternative-hypothesis test, the unreasonable-doubts warning, and the search-for-the-truth mandate - and then explains, both logically and empirically, how each one violates our due process rights.Īfter discussing the reasonable-doubt standard and common jury instruction flaws in Parts I and II, Part III discusses my attempt to win a very modest reform of Wisconsin’s jury instruction - a disastrous piece of work that incorporates all four of these burden-lowering defects. And many courts describe it in ways that lower, and sometimes even shift, the burden of proof. ![]() However, this high burden is only as formidable as the words used to describe it to the jury. The Constitution protects us from criminal conviction unless the government can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Cicchini (Independent) has posted Instructing Jurors on Reasonable Doubt: It’s All Relative (8 Calif. Most of these instructions are given in language that few of us think about: “That is a form jig.” But, perhaps thinking about the language we use is worthwhile. Every day somewhere several juries are given instructions on reasonable doubt. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |