Twenty per cent of the jurors on death juries believe that an aggravating factor can be established by preponderance of the evidence or only to a juror’s personal satisfaction. at 10. Id. Judge Leonard B. Sand & Danielle Rose, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Is There a Need For A Higher Burden of Proof When the 78 Chi.- Kent L. Rev. 1359 (2003). Sentence May Be Death, Reasonable doubt may represent less than 95% certainty in the minds of many jurors and although judges ask jurors to be convinced that the defendant is guilty prior to convicting him, empirical data suggest that jurors may not apply as rigorous a standard as desired. at 1366. Id. Many jurors believe that they must unanimously agree that a mitigating circumstance is present in the case before it can be considered. John Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen P. Garvey, Lessons from the Chapter 5 in Beyond Repair? America’s Death Capital Jury Project, Penalty, Duke University Press 144-77 (2003). 66% of Carolina jurors and 42% of North Carolina jurors believed that all jurors had to agree on the existence of a mitigating circumstance before the jury could consider that factor in reaching a decision. at 158. Id. Luginbuhl & Howe, Discretion in Capital Sentencing Instructions: 70 Ind. L. J. 1161 (1995). Guided or MisGuided? comprehension is worse when mitigating factors are considered. Jurors were confused about the burden of proof and unanimity was poor. Almost half (49%) thought unanimity was required for mitigating circumstances and 41% thought the standard of proof for mitigating factors was beyond a reasonable doubt. at 1167. Id. Eisenberg & Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital 79 Cornell L. Rev.1 (1993). Cases, great majority of jurors-in excess of sixty percent in both life “The and death cases-erroneously believe that jurors must agree unanimously for mitigating circumstances to support a vote against death.” at 225. Id. Many jurors also believe that mitigating circumstances must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and a disturbing percentage of jurors did not understand that they could consider any factor in mitigation.
Twenty per cent of the jurors on death juries believe that an aggravating factor can be established by preponderance of the evidence or only to a juror’s personal satisfaction. Id. at 10. Judge Leonard B. Sand & Danielle Rose, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Is There a Need For A Higher Burden of Proof When the Sentence May Be Death, 78 Chi.- Kent L. Rev. 1359 (2003). Reasonable doubt may represent less than 95% certainty in the minds of many jurors and although judges ask jurors to be convinced that the defendant is guilty prior to convicting him, empirical data suggest that jurors may not apply as rigorous a standard as desired. Id. at 1366. Many jurors believe that they must unanimously agree that a mitigating circumstance is present in the case before it can be considered. John Theodore Eisenberg, Stephen P. Garvey, Lessons from the Capital Jury Project, Chapter 5 in Beyond Repair? America’s Death Penalty, Duke University Press 144-77 (2003). 66% of Carolina jurors and 42% of North Carolina jurors believed that all jurors had to agree on the existence of a mitigating circumstance before the jury could consider that factor in reaching a decision. Id. at 158. Luginbuhl & Howe, Discretion in Capital Sentencing Instructions: Guided or MisGuided? 70 Ind. L. J. 1161 (1995). comprehension is worse when mitigating factors are considered. Jurors were confused about the burden of proof and unanimity was poor. Almost half (49%) thought unanimity was required for mitigating circumstances and 41% thought the standard of proof for mitigating factors was beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 1167. Eisenberg & Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital Cases, 79 Cornell L. Rev.1 (1993). “The great majority of jurors-in excess of sixty percent in both life and death cases-erroneously believe that jurors must agree unanimously for mitigating circumstances to support a vote against death.” Id. at 225. Many jurors also believe that mitigating circumstances must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and a disturbing percentage of jurors did not understand that they could consider any factor in mitigation.
Empirical-Studies-Summaries-revised-spring-2010.docx