Not Guilty And Innocent - The Problem Children Of Reasonable Doubt

Skip to main content

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( LockA locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

1. Home

NCJRS Virtual Library The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works. Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library Not Guilty and Innocent - The Problem Children of Reasonable Doubt NCJ Number 88095 Journal Court Review Volume: 20 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1983) Pages: 16-25 Author(s) V T Bugliosi Date Published 1983 Length 10 pages Annotation Criminal trial juries are often given the impression by incorrect pattern jury instructions that their job is to determine guilt or innocence, although their true role is to determine if the prosecution has met its legal burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Abstract Jury members must understand the legal definitions of the terms guilty, not guilty, and innocent, as well as beyond a reasonable doubt. While in lay usage the term 'not guilty' is often synonymous with 'innocent,' in American criminal jurisprudence they are not the same. 'Not guilty' is a legal finding by the jury that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof. A widely used source of pattern instructions for Federal criminal trials, 'Federal Jury Practice and Instructions,' compiled by Devitt and Blackmar, contains instructions on the role of a jury in a criminal trial that are hopelessly contradictory, inaccurate, and unclear. These instructions misstate the role of a jury in a criminal trial that are hopelessly contradictory, inaccurate, and unclear. These instructions misstate the role of the jury to be that of determining guilt or innocence. An examination of pattern jury instructions in the individual State courts reveals the same generic type of incorrect and confusing instructions in most of the States. If the jury misconceives its role, the prosecution benefits, since it is much easier for the prosecution to prove guilt than it is to prove not just guilt, but guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the defense suffers from the jury's misconception of its role. To rectify these misunderstandings, the article recommends a statement to be incorporated into pattern jury instructions at the State and Federal level. A total of 56 notes are provided.

Additional Details

Publication Format Article Language English Country United States of America

Downloads

No download available

Availability

Find in a Library

Related Topics

Burden of proof Jury decision making Jury instructions Reasonable Doubt Juries