Grave doubts about “reasonable doubt”: Confusion in state and federal courts

An Empirical Comparison of the Old and Revised Jury Instructions of California: Do Jurors Comprehend Legal Ease Better or Does Bias Still Exist?

“…For instance, the verbiage for proof beyond a reasonable doubt varies from state to state and differs from the verbiage that is used in the federal court system [15]. According to Hemmens et al [15], the term reasonable doubt is a mandatory statement in all criminal court cases across all 50 states, but the terminology used is written in six different forms.…”

“…For instance, the verbiage for proof beyond a reasonable doubt varies from state to state and differs from the verbiage that is used in the federal court system [15]. According to Hemmens et al [15], the term reasonable doubt is a mandatory statement in all criminal court cases across all 50 states, but the terminology used is written in six different forms. The disparity between state and federal interpretations of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and juror confusion has therefore led to the formation of judiciary committees to rewrite their standard juror instructions from the legal babble of legalese into a set of Plain-English instructions that are universally acceptable to lawyers, judges and laypersons alike [10].…”

“…The purpose of these instructions is to reduce the time spent by judges writing individual sets of instructions according to the varying aspects of court cases and to maintain a uniform usage of legal terminology, but judges still maintain the right to change, modify, or not use them at all [15] [16].…”

“…On many occasions in the past, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly set aside judgments in cases where judges have attempted to veer from the standard jury instructions or when the meaning of a legal concept was unclear to jury members [15]. There have been some minor definitional changes to the standard jury instructions in attempts to increase comprehension and to clarify legal concepts, but the goal of the Supreme Court judges has always been to decrease the number of appeals due to confusing legal language and to make a set of universal instructions that the average federal court juror could understand [15].…”

“…There have been some minor definitional changes to the standard jury instructions in attempts to increase comprehension and to clarify legal concepts, but the goal of the Supreme Court judges has always been to decrease the number of appeals due to confusing legal language and to make a set of universal instructions that the average federal court juror could understand [15].…”