I have twice had to do jury service in the Crown Court, once in Cambridge and once at Southwark in London, and both were fascinating and strangely reassuring experiences. Before retiring to consider our verdict, the jury was carefully briefed by the judge. He told us that we must disregard any previous opinion we might have had on the likelihood of innocence or guilt, and should make our decision exclusively on the basis of the evidence as presented in court. He reminded us that in Britain the suspect remains innocent until actually proven otherwise. He emphasized that if a juror felt that the evidence left even the slightest margin of doubt as to the certainty of the case, then he or she had an absolute legal duty to acquit the defendant.
We are now sitting around the long table in the jury room. Adam Pinkurst is charged with being the scribe of the Hengwrt Chaucer...We now weigh the evidence of the courtroom...As the judge has emphasized, there must be no room for ambiguity. We decide to take an initial poll around the table, and the first vote falls to me. Do I think that it is proven, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Scribe B was Adam Pinkhurst? All eyes are waiting for my reply. I take a deep breath. No, I do not...Perhaps the other eleven jurors will outvote me yet.
-Christopher De Hamel, Meetings With Remarkable Manuscripts, "The Hengwrt Chaucer," pp 463-4.
That is exactly what jurors in criminal cases are told in the judge's charge in America and we stole it, as so much else, from England. Remarkable memory by Christopher De Hamel, he paid close attention and took his jury service very seriously, as all jurors in my experience do.
Criminal case that. Why is that a criminal case? Why is Adam Pinkhurst a criminal defendant? Cuz Christopher De Hamel sat on a criminal case, that's what he knew. I do not know what, or even if there is a, "burden of proof" in scholarship like beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal law.
But there is civil law as we call it in the Colonies where, e.g. someone might sue to establish his claim to be the scribe of an important work. Adam Pinkurst would not be a defendant in a criminal case, he would be the plaintiff in a civil case and there, in America and in England, he must prevail on a burden of proof of "the greater weight of the evidence." 50%+1.
Vastly different than beyond a reasonable doubt. How would juror De Hamel have voted applying the greater weight of the evidence standard?
We are now sitting around the long table in the jury room. Adam Pinkurst is charged with being the scribe of the Hengwrt Chaucer...We now weigh the evidence of the courtroom...As the judge has emphasized, there must be no room for ambiguity. We decide to take an initial poll around the table, and the first vote falls to me. Do I think that it is proven, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Scribe B was Adam Pinkhurst? All eyes are waiting for my reply. I take a deep breath. No, I do not...Perhaps the other eleven jurors will outvote me yet.
-Christopher De Hamel, Meetings With Remarkable Manuscripts, "The Hengwrt Chaucer," pp 463-4.
That is exactly what jurors in criminal cases are told in the judge's charge in America and we stole it, as so much else, from England. Remarkable memory by Christopher De Hamel, he paid close attention and took his jury service very seriously, as all jurors in my experience do.
Criminal case that. Why is that a criminal case? Why is Adam Pinkhurst a criminal defendant? Cuz Christopher De Hamel sat on a criminal case, that's what he knew. I do not know what, or even if there is a, "burden of proof" in scholarship like beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal law.
But there is civil law as we call it in the Colonies where, e.g. someone might sue to establish his claim to be the scribe of an important work. Adam Pinkurst would not be a defendant in a criminal case, he would be the plaintiff in a civil case and there, in America and in England, he must prevail on a burden of proof of "the greater weight of the evidence." 50%+1.
Vastly different than beyond a reasonable doubt. How would juror De Hamel have voted applying the greater weight of the evidence standard?
