{"id":12178,"date":"2010-11-16T09:49:58","date_gmt":"2010-11-16T14:49:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=12178"},"modified":"2010-11-16T18:31:40","modified_gmt":"2010-11-16T23:31:40","slug":"criminal-court-guilty-by-the-preponderance-of-the-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2010\/11\/criminal-court-guilty-by-the-preponderance-of-the-evidence\/","title":{"rendered":"Criminal Court: Guilty by the Preponderance of the Evidence?"},"content":{"rendered":"

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.\u00a0 However, upon even minimal scrutiny, this belief starts to crumble.\u00a0 For example, Wisconsin criminal jury instruction number 140 concludes with the following two sentences: \u201cWhile it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, you are not to search for doubt.\u00a0 You are to search for the truth.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

This instruction is problematic for several reasons.\u00a0 First, it invites \u2014 in fact, instructs \u2014 the jury to disregard the evidence and instead speculate on, or \u201csearch for,\u201d what it believes to be \u201cthe truth.\u201d\u00a0 This capitalizes on the human tendency to think we can know things without evidence.\u00a0 How often have you heard someone say, for example, \u201cI know it, I just can\u2019t prove it\u201d?\u00a0 The jury instruction only emboldens that kind of sloppy thinking, and at the worst possible time with much at stake.<\/p>\n

Second, this concept of truth-seeking is actually misplaced. <\/p>\n

If truth-seeking were the system\u2019s only, or even primary, concern, we would not exclude otherwise relevant evidence under, for example, the rape shield statue, the general ban on character evidence, or, although increasingly infrequent, even the Miranda<\/em> rule.\u00a0 Instead, the jury often hears only a portion of the relevant evidence, and it should therefore convict only if the state presented sufficient evidence at trial, regardless of what the jury speculates might be true.<\/p>\n

Third, and at the very least, the \u201csearch for the truth\u201d language invites the jury to substitute a \u201cpreponderance of the evidence\u201d standard for the \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt\u201d standard.\u00a0 That is, if there is ever so slightly more evidence of guilt than of innocence, then it necessarily follows that, in a \u201csearch for the truth,\u201d the defendant must be guilty.\u00a0 However, such a conclusion is not consistent with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n

And fourth, what does it mean for a jury to \u201csearch for doubt,\u201d and why is this not acceptable?\u00a0 If a juror has a reasonable doubt that defense counsel failed to discuss in closing argument, must the juror disregard the doubt because he, the juror, searched for it?\u00a0 If a doubt is a reasonable one, should it matter whether it was presented to the jury or, alternatively, searched for and discovered by the jury during its deliberations?<\/p>\n

In short, the last two sentences of the jury instruction diminish, or at the very least confuse, the state\u2019s burden of proof.\u00a0 As one court recognized nearly forty years ago with regard to reasonable doubt, \u201cthe phrase is self-defining, [] there is no equivalent phrase more easily understood . . . and [] any effort at further elucidation tends to misleading refinements.\u201d United States v. Lawson<\/em>, 507 F.2d 433 (7th\u00a0Cir. 1974).\u00a0 And because other portions of the Wisconsin jury instruction go to great lengths to define what a reasonable doubt is and is not, its last two sentences are the unnecessary icing on an already convoluted cake.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Michael D. Cicchini<\/strong> is a criminal defense lawyer and author of But They Didn\u2019t Read Me My Rights! Myths, Oddities, and Lies about Our Legal System<\/em> (Prometheus Books, 2010) as well as articles on criminal and constitutional law, available here<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.\u00a0 However, upon even minimal scrutiny, this belief starts to crumble.\u00a0 For example, Wisconsin criminal jury instruction number 140 concludes with the following two sentences: \u201cWhile it is your […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-justice","category-criminal-law","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/97"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}