5 ms·

Historical precedent rather then accident I would say. There is a quote in the court's opinion that using historical precedent "promotes the evenhanded, predic

Historical precedent rather then accident I would say. There is a quote in the court's opinion that using historical precedent "promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process". I agree with you, beyond a reasonable doubt should mean all jurors agree.

drapred7 6y ago
At the risk of being a bit technical, (as law tends to be) I think reasonable doubt is called the "standard of evidence". Its the phrase "jury trial" that the court found to require unanimous verdicts.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  Criminal jury trials have the unanimity requirement. Also, criminal convictions are held the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, though there may be collateral actions, or procedural determinations in a criminal trial that have a different standard of evidence. Otherwise, US States have a lot of flexibility in how they handle non-criminal cases.
cyphar 6y ago
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is a standard of evidence, it doesn't have anything to do with whether the jury needs to be unanimous. They need to be unanimous regardless of the standard of evidence, even for "preponderance of the evidence" (which means that the jury finds it more likely than not -- that the evidence "tips the scale"). If the jury is not unanimous they need to deliberate more until they are unanimous (if they deadlock then a new jury is called and the whole case starts again).
- jessaustin 6y ago
  The two concepts seem related, at least if we assume that jurors are reasonable. A single reasonable juror having a doubt indicates that the verdict is not beyond reasonable doubt. I agree that unanimity is not as obvious when the standard is "preponderance".
  - cyphar 6y ago
    I guess I should've said that it's a separate condition, rather than being unrelated. The standard each juror needs to consider when making their own determination is "beyond reasonable doubt" (or "preponderance" or "clear and convincing"), and in order for the verdict to be held by the jury it needs to be unanimous.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    I think the assumption that jurors are invariably reasonable, as opposed to on average reasonable is a pretty heroic assumption not well supported by the history of trial by jury though.
    - ergothus 6y ago
      And yet, the US legal system is built around such assumptions, invalid as they may be.
    - asperous 6y ago
      A jury selection process lets both sides of a case interview jurors and agree on impartial and reasonable jurors. Estimates of wrongful conviction are between .13%-5% (wikipedia, miscarriage of justice), however the main thing that trial by jury affords is transparency and perception of fairness, since you are convicted by your peers and not some politician with questionable incentives.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      Don't forget that the court decides what a jury gets to see or hear about a case. Juries are not perfect, but they are the best tool we have. Further, the prosecutor has real power that far outweighs the power of the accused. Juries imperfectly provide an offset to that power imbalance.

drapred7 6y ago

At the risk of being a bit technical, (as law tends to be) I think reasonable doubt is called the "standard of evidence". Its the phrase "jury trial" that the court found to require unanimous verdicts.

pnw_hazor 6y ago
Criminal jury trials have the unanimity requirement. Also, criminal convictions are held the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, though there may be collateral actions, or procedural determinations in a criminal trial that have a different standard of evidence. Otherwise, US States have a lot of flexibility in how they handle non-criminal cases.

cyphar 6y ago

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is a standard of evidence, it doesn't have anything to do with whether the jury needs to be unanimous. They need to be unanimous regardless of the standard of evidence, even for "preponderance of the evidence" (which means that the jury finds it more likely than not -- that the evidence "tips the scale"). If the jury is not unanimous they need to deliberate more until they are unanimous (if they deadlock then a new jury is called and the whole case starts again).

jessaustin 6y ago
The two concepts seem related, at least if we assume that jurors are reasonable. A single reasonable juror having a doubt indicates that the verdict is not beyond reasonable doubt. I agree that unanimity is not as obvious when the standard is "preponderance".
- cyphar 6y ago
  I guess I should've said that it's a separate condition, rather than being unrelated. The standard each juror needs to consider when making their own determination is "beyond reasonable doubt" (or "preponderance" or "clear and convincing"), and in order for the verdict to be held by the jury it needs to be unanimous.
- notahacker 6y ago
  I think the assumption that jurors are invariably reasonable, as opposed to on average reasonable is a pretty heroic assumption not well supported by the history of trial by jury though.
  - ergothus 6y ago
    And yet, the US legal system is built around such assumptions, invalid as they may be.
  - asperous 6y ago
    A jury selection process lets both sides of a case interview jurors and agree on impartial and reasonable jurors. Estimates of wrongful conviction are between .13%-5% (wikipedia, miscarriage of justice), however the main thing that trial by jury affords is transparency and perception of fairness, since you are convicted by your peers and not some politician with questionable incentives.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    Don't forget that the court decides what a jury gets to see or hear about a case. Juries are not perfect, but they are the best tool we have. Further, the prosecutor has real power that far outweighs the power of the accused. Juries imperfectly provide an offset to that power imbalance.