A Reflection on the Words “Reasonable Doubt.”

Prepared as a Public Service to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

As a criminal defense attorney the two most important words in all of criminal law and procedure is the words, “reasonable doubt.” 

Legal scholars and philosophers have thought long and hard in attempting to articulate what these two words mean.  What are these elusive ethereal words in which the criminally accuse hang their life and future upon. 

I guess in the final analysis these words can mean very little or very much to the individual juror.  Depending on the individual juror’s character, personality, education and religious beliefs it can mean many different things to different people.  On one hand when a juror has a strong sense of fairness, justice, compassion, mercy, care in  deliberation, and fear of making a mistake, that individual would probably make a good juror because the words “reasonable doubt”, would be words for the calling to perform a scared duty.  On the other hand, a juror who is not deliberative has no understanding or appreciation for justice or fairness, unmerciful, the words “reasonable doubt” would have no real meaning or understanding to such a person.

Reasonable doubt in other words is a moral certainty of correctness, of reaching a decision as to guilt or not guilt, that is a close to what a mortal human being can render, without violating his or her mortal consciousness.

Or stated more directly: Would you convict if these same set of facts were charged against you or someone you loved.  Would you want a jury to honor the reasonable doubt standard and acquit or would it not matter.

Very few people know that the origins of reasonable doubt go back many hundreds of years in history, back to the middle ages, in the time of western Christendom, when it was a mortal sin for Christians to convict someone who was innocent.  Therefore, it was mortal, or in other words, not a sin to convict someone, as long as there was any doubt in the juror’s mind which was reasonable.  In other words, as long as they had reasonable doubt they were prohibiting from rendering a guilty verdict without the penalty of mortal sin. 

Therefore, the origins of the rule were to protect the juror from eternal damnation and not the accused. In other words reasonable doubt is similar to ones conscience.  Jimmy Cricket, “let your conscience be your guide.”

Today the guilt of condemning someone is shifted like a game between the jury and the judge.  The judge says, my hands are tied, a must accept the jurors verdict, I didn’t convict him the jury did.  I have no moral responsibility to this young man.  On the other hand the game shifts to the jury which believes, I will not punish him, the judge will.  I have no mortal responsibility to this young man, I am not punishing him, I didn’t even know or could find out what his punishment was, I have no moral responsibility.  As the classical Romans pronounced.  It is the law that kills him, not you. “Lex eum occidit, non tu.”

Or consider another analogy in thinking about this concept.  The American system to a firing squad. Firing squad procedure is well known: One member of the squad is chosen to receive a blank, but no member of the squad is permitted to know precisely which of them the one who is firing the blank is. The purpose of this procedure is easy to discern: It is intended to relieve the individual squad members of a burdensome sense of moral responsibility, by allowing each one to doubt that it was he who fired the fatal shot. It offers, as we might say, a kind of moral safe harbor for the conscience of killing another human being.

No juror in a criminal jury trial is carrying blanks.  Each vote count, and each vote must be decided with moral certainty, anything else is a charade.  Your vote, remains with you forever.

Quote of the Day:

Ralph Waldo Emerson.  “God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose.”  Those who choose repose receive release from the mandates of truth; but it is only temporary. No man or woman can reject truth forever.  Those who choose truth, on the other hand, have no rest—and so they continue to fight for justice. 

January 22, 2015

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

YourCivilRights@gmail.com

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Press Release Hudson County Superior Court, December of 2014.

Defendant charged and indicted by a Hudson County Grand Jury with official misconduct (second degree) and theft (third degree).  Defendant facing a state prison sentence as follows.  For the official misconduct a consecutive sentence of 5-10 years to run consecutive to the third degree theft of 3-5 years. Total maximum state prison exposure of 15-years in state prison.

Appropriate pre-trial motions filed to the Superior Court Judge and the official misconduct count of the indictment is dismissed by court prior to trial. 

After a five day criminal jury trial in which the case was given to the jury for deliberation, and while the jury is still deliberating, the Hudson County Prosecutor offers the defendant PTI (pre-trial intervention program), without the payment of any restitution.

Final results: After a period of one-year the theft charge will be dismissed and the Defendant will move to have his arrest for these charges expunged, and he will have absolutely no criminal record of the arrest or of the charges which were dismissed.

The Defendant who was not guilty is vindicated by Attorney Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq. For a further review of the numerous criminal defense victories for Attorney Sanzone go to CriminalDefenseNJ.com

The Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., providing competent and vigorous criminal defense representation for 25-years in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson, Essex, Union, Somerset, Bergen, Passaic, Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex counties.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth, N.J. 07207

(908) 354-7006

CriminalDefenseNJ.com

Ipse dixit, which is translated from Latin to English, “we already decided you are bad.”  Why do the police and/or prosecutor always decided that the defendant committed the crime without knowing all the facts of the case?  Willful blindness is never justice.  Authentic Justice requires that before anyone is charged with a crime that the charging authorities honestly and fairly investigate the alleged unlawful activity.  All too often law enforcement rushes to judgment “to put a feather in their cap” and close a file.

Another Example How Some New Jersey Municipal Courts are All About Money and Little About Justice

Prepared as a Public Service to the People by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

Know one has to reminded that municipal courts are supposed to be in the business of dispensing justice, not generating revenues for cash strapped municipal budgets.

Sadly most municipal court judges are pressured by municipal elected officials to generate fees and fines.  In recent years municipal courts are cash cows and without the enormous revenues generated by the court municipalities could not balance their budgets.

It goes without saying that municipal court judges that are merely revenue collectors for the towns that hire them are not performing their judicial functions.  Also finding the police officers credible in every case, and finding every defendant before them guilty, does nothing to foster the principals that judges are beyond such petty concerns.  The problem of course is that municipal court judges are hired at the behest of the town fathers you often gauge the performance of the judge in their town, not by judicial temperament, fairness and understanding of the law, but rather, how much money did the judge bring in last year.  

The problem was highlighted again when the Borough of Eatontown in Monmouth County engaged in a search for a new judge after seeing court revenues drop by more than 20 percent under prior judge, George Cieri, who appeared from press accounts to have good judicial temperament, fairness, and some compassion for assessing lower fines for the poor people who often came before him (let us be honest most people that are ticketed and arrested and appear in municipal courts are in fact the poor and minorities).


The problem surfaced when one councilman had no shame (Dennis Connelly a retired Eatontown cop) in urging his fellow council members to pick one attorney over another, and sole criteria was that this particular attorney was known to be a great revenue collector for the township in which he was currently employed as a judge.  Mr. Connelly also had the temerity to write according to press accounts that young and aggressive officers who were writing a lot summonses might get discouraged if the wrong judge was chosen.   He further wrote according to press accounts that Judge Cieri had a different philosophy of being a judge, whatever that means.  Although this is an extreme example of a person who has no understanding of the judicial system, this however, is not an isolated example.

All this was confirmed by the courage of the attorney Eugene Melody III, of Martin Melody in Little Silver, who pulled his name from the selection process when he wrote.  The town’s expectations are “inimical to my interpretation of how the constitution intended the third branch of government to function." Hats off to this courageous attorney to speak the truth.  The scandal also drew the attention of assignment judge Lawrence Lawson, who told the town to stop pressuring judges about revenues.   The issue of generating revenue over justice was also confirmed by Judge Cieri who complained to Judge Lawson about being pressured by the township.

The inherit conflict between justice and revenues in municipal court is a Statewide problem.  In the future the problem will only get worse as towns and cites scramble for every shrinking revenue sources and teeter on bankruptcy.   That is why all New Jersey municipal court must consolidate as Governor Christie has promoted, into joint municipal courts, with judges appointed by the Governor based on judicial experience, temperament, knowledge of the law and fairness.

Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.

P.O. Box 261

277 North Broad Street

Elizabeth (Union County) New Jersey 07207

Tel: (908) 354-7006

CriminaldefenseNJ.com

“If you want peace work for Justice.”  Pope John Paul, I