Criminal Court: Guilty by the Preponderance of the Evidence?

One of our fundamental beliefs is that before a jury may convict a person of a crime, it must be satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  However, upon even minimal scrutiny, this belief starts to crumble.  For example, Wisconsin criminal jury instruction number 140 concludes with the following two sentences: “While it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, you are not to search for doubt.  You are to search for the truth.”

This instruction is problematic for several reasons.  First, it invites — in fact, instructs — the jury to disregard the evidence and instead speculate on, or “search for,” what it believes to be “the truth.”  This capitalizes on the human tendency to think we can know things without evidence.  How often have you heard someone say, for example, “I know it, I just can’t prove it”?  The jury instruction only emboldens that kind of sloppy thinking, and at the worst possible time with much at stake.

Second, this concept of truth-seeking is actually misplaced.

Continue ReadingCriminal Court: Guilty by the Preponderance of the Evidence?

Study Reveals Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection

Last month, the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) released a study, “Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: A Continuing Legacy,” which revealed a prevalence of racial bias in jury selection in the South.  The report stands as the most comprehensive study of racial discrimination in jury selection since 1986, when the US Supreme Court sought to limit the practice in the landmark case Batson v. Kentucky.

Racial discrimination in jury selection first became illegal when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875.  Despite federal legislation, people of color continue to be excluded from jury service because of their race, especially in serious criminal trials and death penalty cases.

Evidence suggests the phenomenon persists through the use of peremptory challenges.  A peremptory challenge essentially provides attorneys the ability to exclude a certain number of potential jurors without explanation of their removal.

Continue ReadingStudy Reveals Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection

What’s Good for the Goose . . .

Earlier this week, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in In Re Sherwin-Williams Co. The court upheld Judge Lynn Adelman’s decision not to recuse himself from a case pending before him in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Burton v. American Cyandamid, et al. 

Sherwin-Williams is currently before Adelman as a defendant in a personal injury action involving lead paint, heard in diversity jurisdiction. S-W believed “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (the relevant legal standard) because he had written an article defending the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s controversial lead paint decision in Thomas v. Mallett, 2005 WI 129.  (The article is Adelman & Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425 (2007)). In the article, Adelman defended the Court’s 04-05 term generally and praised Thomas particularly as a “positive development” which ensured that “the doors of the courthouse remain open.” Id. at 446. 

Based on this characterization, S-W sought his recusal in this case. 

Continue ReadingWhat’s Good for the Goose . . .