‘Reasonable doubt?’ articles focuson flaws in criminal justice system

As soon as Issac Bailey’s comprehensive articles on the use of the reasonable doubt standard were published, faultfinders began questioning the wisdom of spending reporting time and energy on a conviction in a 2012 home invasion case.

The criticism was hardly surprising – and most of it largely missed the point.

Bailey’s reporting is important. Jamar Huggins’s conviction raises questions about the legal principle of reasonable doubt – basic and fundamental in U.S. criminal justice. In the famous – or infamous, depending on one’s point of view –murder trial of former NFL star O.J. Simpson, his defense attorneys evidently established enough reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors that they returned a not guilty verdict. Many Americans continue to strongly feel Simpson is guilty and that race had to figure in the stunning verdict.

Reasonable doubt did not work in favor of Huggins, also a black man, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison. His conviction was entirely based on the testimony of a crack-addicted woman who admitted she lied to protect herself. There was no DNA evidence, no fingerprints. The sole witness for the prosecution recanted on the witness stand. The jury did not have the opportunity to fully examine the statement from the witness on which they based their guilty verdict.

From the Day 5 article: Jurors “were not told [the trial witness] initially denied everything and that her story included multiple claims that contradict those made by the man police said was the real target of the home invasion.”

An alternate juror said “I was surprised by the verdict. I just didn’t find that the witness was credible. I thought there was a lack of evidence.”

In the trial transcript, Judge Benjamin Culbertson notes that jurors evidently disbelieved the witness’ testimony at trial but accepted her statement to police during interrogation at J. Reuben Long Detention Center. The judge said it was “a close call” in denying a motion for a directed verdict. In a pending appeal, Huggins’ lawyer argues that the judge should have issued a directed verdict of not guilty.

The reporting project began months prior to publication in September. As it happened, Bailey’s series was published just as the recent Harvard Nieman Fellow left The Sun News, where he had spent more than 15 years working as a reporter and columnist.

One of the articles discussed the role of race in Huggins’ case. The trial jury of 12 included only one black man. The judge allowed a black woman to avoid serving on the jury after she told the judge there was “too much street in this case.”

The result may be unintentional, and even unconscious, but there is “a growing body of evidence that it is a major factor in jury decision-making.” The research includes a study by the Equal Justice Initiative showing “most jury pools are overwhelmingly white, and that the relatively few potential black jurors are dismissed at a much higher percentage than potential white jurors.”

And there is increasing research showing a jury’s racial makeup can impact its verdict. Trial attorneys may not strike potential jurors based on race per se, but it’s not difficult to cite non-racial reasons.

Bailey’s reporting on this project, as it has on other articles he has written on the topic of race, brought the expected accusations that he is a racist and his work was nothing more than “race-baiting,” whatever some think that means.

Those accusations may be based on feeling that if a black man is writing about another black man’s conviction, the writer is playing the race card. Such thinking leads to missing the point – that “beyond a reasonable doubt” isn’t always a fair standard from which dispense justice.

And when it comes to dispensing justice fairly, the system has plenty of room for improvement.

This story was originally published October 10, 2015 at 7:07 AM with the headline "‘Reasonable doubt?’ articles focuson flaws in criminal justice system."