Jack Whiteley (Georgetown University Law Center) has published "How Jurors' Beliefs Count" on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This article develops a solution to the proof paradoxes. It argues that the standards of proof condition liability on jurors forming what philosophers call a full or outright belief that the defendant broke the law. This requirement solves the problems of statistical evidence and the conjunction of the elements, and it resolves a longstanding split among judges on jury instructions. The article also raises objections to previous solutions, including public acceptance, relative plausibility, and probabilistic knowledge.
Comments