Last time I told you about a prosecutor who in his voir dire (talking to the jury) and final argument (the argument at the end of the case) told the jury that reaching a decision "beyond a reasonable doubt" was similar to the "life and death" decision we make every day to drive our car on the highway. I had objected strenuously because I felt that it lowered the standard of proof. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the highest standard in the law, and it's only used when life or liberty are at stake.
Well, in researching the issue, I found that I was right, and the appellate courts agree with me. In two cases, People v. Johnson and People v. Nguyen, the courts said that arguing that making a "beyond a reasonable doubt" decision is like one's everyday decisions is misleading and just plain wrong. In Johnson it was the judge who used the exact example of driving a car that I had objected to. The appellate court reversed that case because, it said, the jury was mislead into believing the standard was a simple ordinary decision instead of the solemn, difficult process which a criminal jury should engage in. (In fact, they cited a case from 1878 which said the same thing!).
In the Nguyen case. the prosecutor argued the driving example as a "life and death" decision. The court did not reverse that one because the defense did not object, thus depriving the trial court of its chance to give a corrective instruction. However, it did chastize the prosecutor for purposely lowering the standard of proof in a criminal case.
So, see? My instincts were right. Finding these cases are vindication, of sorts. The judge had told me at trial that he didn 't think there was "anything wrong" with the argument the prosecutor was making. Evidently, it was an argument that prosecutors have been making in this county for years. Am I the first one in Humboldt to realize this was wrong? Evidently.
