I'm in trial right now with a veteran prosecutor, highly respected, very well known. And, I might add, a good lawyer.
During our discussion with the jury on voir dire (that's when we get to talk to them to see if we want to keep them as jurors), this prosecutor suggested to the jurors that they make decisions "beyond a reasonable doubt" every day.
"When you get into your car, you don't know if you're going to have an accident or not. You don't know if you'll make it to your destination alive. But y0u decide to drive anyway because you know the chances of that happening are not great. So you make this life or death decision, don't you? And you decide that, despite your doubts, you're going to drive. So you drive your car, having decided beyond a reasonable doubt that you're going to arrive."
The jurors nodded their heads. But I had to disagree, which I did with the next juror we talked to:
"Before you drive your car, does anyone tell you that you have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that you won't get into an accident?"
No, the juror said.
"Have you ever been in an accident?"
Yes, the juror said.
"So you might be deciding to drive despite your reasonable doubts?"
Of course, the juror responded.
As I drove home that night, the full unfairness of the driving analogy hit me. By telling the jurors that they make "beyond a reasonable doubt" decisions each day, the prosecutor is trying to minimize the burden he has to carry. If jurors think that finding a man guilty of murder is as easy as deciding to drive their car, they won't realize how hard it's supposed to be!
It's supposed to be hard for a reason. Our society made a choice long ago that we don't want to find people guilty of crimes unless we're as humanly sure as we can be. That means that, even if we think someone might be guilty, or likely is guilty, or clearly is guilty...even then, if there's something about the case that doesn't quite fit, he is entitled to a "not guilty verdict." Missing evidence that's important? Not Guilty. A piece of evidence pointing to innocence even if the same evidence points to guilt? Not guilty.
We do this because it's the best we can do. If there's something about the case that bugs our sense of well being, it very well might be because the person is actually innocent.
Sadly, even with the very high burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" innocent people have been convicted. No doubt because a juror decided that finding guilt was as easy as driving his car.
