Reasonable doubt

Download the audio (right click)
Download the video (right click)
Download the text (right click)

The first movie we will study in this class is called "12 Angry Men." It came out in 1957 and shows how 12 men decide whether or not a 17 year old boy is guilty of the crime of murder.

I'd like to begin by talking about the some of the judge's instructions to the jury at the beginning of the movie.

You've listened to the testimony. You've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case. It's now your duty to sit down and try and separate the facts from the fancy.

Now, let's look at each sentence.

You've listened to the testimony.

"You've listened to the testimony." The judge is not speaking very clearly here. He sounds a little bored. I think he must be saying "You've listened to the testimony" but I can't hear him say "you've." The Longman English Dictionary says that the word "testimony" means "a formal statement that something is true." When people speak in a court of law about what happened in a case like this one, their speech is called "testimony." One important job of a juror is to listen to testimony.

You've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case.

"You've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case." Ordinary people become jurors. Unlike judges and lawyers, they are not experts on the law but they must make very important decisions based on the law. It is the job of the judge to make sure that the jurors have had the relevant laws read to them and that the laws have been explained properly. The jury system is based on the idea that, in a democracy, ordinary citizens are smart enough to understand the laws. In other words, ordinary citizens may not have broad knowledge of the law but they have the ability to understand the laws if they are explained properly.

It's now your duty to sit down and try and separate the facts from the fancy.

"It's now your duty to sit down and try and separate the facts from the fancy." A duty is something that someone must do. Longman says that it is "something that you have to do because it is morally or legally right." "Fancy" is something that is imagined but is not true. Longman says that fancy means "an idea or opinion that is not based on fact." So, in other words, the jurors must sit down and decide what is true and what is not true.

Now, let's listen to this part of the judge's instructions again.

You've listened to the testimony. You've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case. It's now your duty to sit down and try and separate the facts from the fancy.

Soon after this the judge tells the jurors that they must make their decision on the basis of "reasonable doubt."

If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused -- a reasonable doubt -- then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. Now if, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must in, good conscience, find the accused guilty.

"If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused -- a reasonable doubt -- then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty." Longman says that "doubt" is "a feeling of being not sure whether something is true or right." The phrase "not sure" is important. Even if we think that it is likely that something happened, we may still have some doubts about it. It is also important to think about why we do not feel sure. The judge uses the phrase "reasonable doubt." "Reasonable" is based on the word "reason." If a doubt is "reasonable" there are reasons for it. It is possible to doubt anything. We might doubt, for example, that the sun will come up again tomorrow. However, if we don't have a reason to doubt that the sun will come up, our doubt is not a reasonable one. When the judge says "If there's a reasonable doubt . . . you must bring me a verdict of not guilty" he is saying that the jurors must consider whether or not there is a good reason to think that the boy might not be guilty. This is very different from considering whether or not the boy is probably guilty. This idea of "reasonable doubt" is at the heart of the jury system and this movie. Let's listen to the judge talk about reasonable doubt one more time.

If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused -- a reasonable doubt -- then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must in good conscience find the accused guilty.

The "verdict" is the decision that the jurors make. They will either say "guilty" or "not guilty." "The accused" is the boy. He has been accused of murder so he is called "the accused."

Then, the judge tells the jurors that their decision must be unanimous.

However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous.

"However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous." Longman says that "a unanimous decision, vote, agreement etc is one in which all the people involved agree." Everyone must agree. This, too, is a very important idea in the American jury system and in this movie. If one or more people on the jury do not agree with the other jurors they must talk more. The requirement that the decision be unanimous often forces the jurors to talk more than they would if it were only necessary that a majority or the jurors agree. It also makes it harder to find the accused guilty. In order to find the accused guilty, all twelve jurors must agree that there is not a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused.