[美]乔恩·O·纽曼 著 江东 译 汪诸豪 校

【摘 要】美国庭审法院往往不会向陪审团充分解释什么是排除合理怀疑证明标准，上诉法院有时也不能充分保证这一标准得到遵守。向陪审员解释合理怀疑标准意味着近乎确信被告人有罪的最有效方式应当是给出如下指示：“要想证明至排除合理怀疑的程度，需要一系列证据，这些证据的说服力让你对被告人有罪达到很高程度的确信。衡量这种确信程度的一种方法就是：如果确信的范围是从0到100，那么至少要达到95，才能满足排除合理怀疑。”当案件审理出现了一个严重的问题，即在案证据是否足以使得陪审团在认定被告人有罪时忠实地遵守排除合理怀疑标准，追问陪审团达致排除合理怀疑的结论是否具有合理性，更有助于上诉法院确保该标准得到落实。

【关键词】 排除合理怀疑；庭审法院；上诉法院；陪审团

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2021）05-0620-10

Taking “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Seriously. Jon O. Newman¹, Translator Dong Jiang², Proofreading Zhuhao Wang³. 1. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; 2. School of Law, Southwest University of Political Science and Law; 3. Institute of Evidence Law and Forensic Science, China university of Political Science and Law.

【Abstract】Trial courts frequently do not make the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt sufficiently clear to juries, and appellate courts sometimes do not sufficiently assure that the standard is being observed. The most effective way to tell jurors that the reasonable doubt standard means near certainty that the defendant is guilty is to give the following instruction: “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires evidence of such persuasive force that you are convinced of the defendant's guilt to a very high degree of certainty. One way to think about that degree of certainty is that if certainty ranged from 0 to 100, proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be reached when your degree of certainty was at least 95.” When a case presents a serious issue as to whether the evidence sufficed to permit a jury to have faithfully observed the reasonable doubt standard in finding a defendant guilty, a reviewing court will be more likely to enforce that standard when it asks whether the jury could reasonably have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

【Key Words】Beyond a reasonable doubt; Trial court; Appellate court; Jury