What percentage doubt would cause you to acquit?

I mean if you're a juror at trial and you're 99.8% sure the guy's guilty. Do you vote to convict him or acquit him?

For me, 100% or he walks.

I have little faith in our justice system.

I would also wonder what did the judge kerp us from hearing or knowing.

If it don't fit...

I would have to be 100% sure if I were on a jury. The burden of proof lies on the state and if I have any doubt, my stance would be not guilty.

Depends on the crime and the consequences

We all voted to let a guy off on a shoplifting charge because the cameras didn't show his face clearly, just the color shirt and his height and skin color. There was other evidence that all pointed to him


Had it been a murder or rape case I guarantee you we all would have voted to prosecute.

quote:

---

The burden of proof lies on the state and if I have any doubt, my stance would be not guilty.

---

Absolutely. Especially if we're talking about a serious charge that will possibly put someone in jail for years and/or send them to the chair.

Luckily I've never had to sit on a trail like that, just a medical malpractice suit.

For a trial where the defendant could get the death penalty, I'd have to be 100% convinced by evidence that wasn't circumstantial. There are so many cases that hinge on that circumstantial proof and juries have to make a judgment.

I would want to feel good about my personal judgment and if I didn't I would vote to acquit. There's no middle ground when you're judging someone and I sure wouldn't want to send someone to prison based on a feeling.

quote:

---

For me it's not about assigning a %; it's about "does the prosecution's story make sense".

---

You can't be serious.

So if they can just get a good story teller to come up with a plausible story, you would say the guy is guilty?