Q: The prosecution in a criminal case has to not only prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but also bring in a unanimous jury to get a conviction. Who are we protecting here? Why does the verdict have to be unanimous?
T.W., Tustin
Ron Sokol
A: The justification for requiring a unanimous jury in criminal cases is that no one should be deprived of their liberty unless it is fully agreed upon. In the typical civil case, a unanimous jury is not mandatory because often the result is to award monetary damages; owing money to someone is not considered nearly as significant as one’s freedom.
Our Supreme Court has held that a unanimous jury in a criminal case is a guaranteed right. Two states had held out (Louisiana and Oregon), but now the requirement of a unanimous jury is uniform.
Q: If a defendant is tried on a criminal charge, and found not guilty, but later on, clear evidence is found of that defendant’s guilt, can he be prosecuted again?
B.T., Torrance
A: The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits trying a person twice for substantially the same crime. This applies even if evidence is subsequently uncovered that shows the defendant indeed is probably guilty. But the person may be pursued in civil court (think of the O.J. Simpson case), and/or there may be administrative claims that can be pursued (such as suspension or revocation of a driver’s license).
Research further indicates that double jeopardy is not applicable to prosecution of lesser included offenses, if the defendant already was tried unsuccessfully on a more serious charge. A different state can also pursue a separate prosecution. It also stands to reason that if someone is convicted of a crime, but the verdict is reversed on appeal, he or she may be retried without a violation of double jeopardy (the caveat being that any offense for which the defendant was found not guilty earlier cannot be retried).
Q: What is meant by “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”?
T.F., Pasadena
A: The jury instruction in California states that the defendant is presumed to be innocent, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This means “proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. … you must impartially compare and consider all of the evidence.”
Ron Sokol has been a practicing attorney for over 40 years, and has also served many times as a judge pro tem, mediator, and arbitrator. It is important to keep in mind that this column presents a summary of the law, and is not to be treated or considered legal advice, let alone a substitute for actual consultation with a qualified professional.
