Show of HandsShow of Hands

Praetorianus November 4th, 2014 5:43am

If you were on jury duty in a case built on circumstantial evidence and witnesses with no physical evidence, but it looks like there is little reasonable doubt left the defendant is guilty, would you rather err on the side of caution or convict?

9 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

ajtndfan
11/06/14 11:40 am

If there is any reasonable doubt then I would vote to acquit.

PartyFree Nowhere in Particular
11/04/14 11:39 pm

Little reasonable doubt is still reasonable doubt. You must acquit.

TierasPet
11/04/14 10:03 am

I agree with 3Gun. Guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in this case I would try to hang the jury and give them more time to get additional evidence.

Diknak Ohio
11/04/14 10:03 am

that republican filter. . . .guilty until proven innocent I guess.

Fjolsvin Midgard
11/04/14 8:01 am

It would depend on the charge, and the level of doubt I had. I am a firm believer in nullification and have been threatened with contempt charges because of it. If the case is not proven beyond reasonable doubt then it must be a vote to acquit.

ScrewU Gone
11/04/14 6:14 am

The prosecution has to prove the case *beyond* a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt exists, no matter how little a juror should vote to acquit.

Reply
Liberty 4,032,064
11/04/14 4:46 am

If the prosecution's case is built on circumstantial evidence and witnesses, there is a lot of reasonable doubt and very little reason to convict anyway. I'd acquit.

Reply
eLucidate writing
11/04/14 4:58 am

I just wish they could release every episode at once

PartyJustin R.O.C.K. in the R.O.C.
11/04/14 9:21 am

I know! I haven't paid attention to episodic entertainment for years and it's driving me nuts.

PartyJustin R.O.C.K. in the R.O.C.
11/08/14 11:35 am

I don't think he killed her, but I think he knows who actually did it. I bet that's part of why his story keeps changing, he's switching Adnan in and out for whoever the third person is. One thing is for sure, I'm convinced Adnan didn't do it.

PartyJustin R.O.C.K. in the R.O.C.
11/08/14 11:36 am

(Sorry for the super late reply, I've been really bad with keeping up with SOH lately!)

bethanyq Ess Eff
11/03/14 10:57 pm

Beyond *any* reasonable doubt means you acquit if there's a "little" bit of reasonable doubt.

Reply
sojourner present
11/04/14 4:24 am

This, so if in your scenario, the prosecution hasn't met their burden of proof, acquit. If they have met it, even if it's only circumstantial, then convict.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
11/03/14 10:45 pm

I'm both uncomfortable with circumstantial evidence and witnesses (who may be unreliable or lying), and also with the notion of "reasonable" doubt. I'd acquit unless I have NO doubt but wouldn't say so when selected or I would be excused.