The Artful Jurist

This week, yours truly got himself cast in a production of the drama, Twelve Angry Men.  (Acting is something I do when I'm not practicing law to satisfy the artistic spirit in me.)  The stage play by Sherman L. Sergel, as adapted from the teleplay by Reginald Rose, is perhaps one of the best known plays about our judicial system.  Twelve jurors must decide whether a 19-year-old is guilty of murder.  If you haven't seen the play or the movie version, you've probably at least seen one of the many parodies that have appeared on various TV shows in which one lone juror voting "not guilty" faces off against eleven others who are eager to convict.

Unlike many crime dramas that focus on having the protagonist solve the crime, Twelve Angry Men focuses not on the issue of determining who the real guilty party is but, rather, on the issue of "reasonable doubt."  That's the standard by which criminal cases are decided in the United States.  To convict, the jury must determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  That's the real issue of the play.  The lone juror's argument isn't that he believes the defendant to be innocent; it's that he believes there's a reasonable doubt about whether he's guilty.

Knowing that I'm a lawyer, a fellow cast member asked me at rehearsal last night whether a jury would be instructed as to what constitutes reasonable doubt.  Jury's are given instructions before they retire to deliberate.  But distinguishing a reasonable doubt from an unreasonable one isn't an exact science.  It's impossible to say where each individual would choose to draw that line.  Hence, the drama -- in the courtroom as well as on stage.