Dear Sir,
After watching the greater part of the Casey Anthony trial, like many others I was disappointed by the verdict.
I am concerned about the amount of influence that “reasonable doubt” has on trial verdicts.
I believe reasonable doubt has become a scapegoat for too many jurors who take no interest in the case, (are) too lazy to consider testimony or physical evidence or (are) so anxious to post a verdict and be released they don’t consider neither oral testimony nor physical evidence.
I am not a constitutional scholar, but I have read the 6th Amendment. It is a great piece of legislation. I would never want even one word changed.
Is reasonable doubt covered by this amendment or is it a Johnny Come Lately devised by some judge or defense attorney to speed up a verdict and maybe throw some advantage to the defense?
I know the words “probable cause” are used some, but I don’t know if it carries much weight or not.
Would it not be fair if when reasonable doubt is emphasized that “reasonable probability” be equally emphasized? This would help jurors to reach a more fair and reasonable verdict without having their conscience seared for overstepping some rule or law.
I am not a Bible scholar, but I have read it through. If I only used reasonable doubt when reading, then I might as well throw my Bible away. I see Scriptures that could easily produce reasonable doubt, but I also see Scriptures that produce reasonable probability.
It would be a nice thing if one of our local attorneys write an article to help the lay people understand how and when this phrase should be used.
Thank you,
Lewis C. Wickline
Phillip Street
Covington