SHIFT IN REASONABLE DOUBT JEOPARDIZES PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark— Most Americans learned everything they know about courtroom law from Perry Mason and Jack McCoy, including the cornerstones of the American judicial system — "presumption of innocence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt." But University of Arkansas law professor Steve Sheppard knows that the concept of reasonable doubt is changing, and that change may do away with the presumption of innocence.
"In practice, reasonable doubt doesn’t work the way we think it does," explained Sheppard. "It has come to mean articulable doubt, a standard that has been directly attacked by federal and state judges on the grounds that it reverses the presumption of innocence."
Although recognized by lawyers and judges, there have been few attempts to address the problem in judicial opinions. To provoke study of this dramatic change, Sheppard wrote the first article to address this issue. "The Metamorphoses of Reasonable Doubt: How Changes in the Burden of Proof Have Weakened the Presumption of Innocence" appears in the current issue of the Notre Dame Law Review.
Central to the issue is the instruction that a judge gives to jurors. This instruction, in effect, tells jurors how independent they can be in exercising their judgement, what they may and may not consider as evidence and the legal basis for their verdict.
"Throughout history, the fundamental purpose of the instruction was to constrain the juror, to prevent the juror from acting with excessive independence," Sheppard explained. "But the legal consequences of the instruction have changed. Over time the burden upon the juror who would acquit has grown, and so the evidence necessary for the state to convict has lessened." Full: http://advancement.uark.edu/news/MAY03/REASONABLE_DOUBT.html --- Sent from UnionMail Service [http://mail.union.org.za]