Letter: Justice in the dock: the fallibility of juries, self-defence, and trial by media
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your leading article today on the fallibility of juries is guilty of a serious error in asserting that 'it can safely be said only that this jury evidently was convinced that the defendant (acted in self defence)'. That is not so: all that can safely be said is that the jury was not convinced that he had not done so. The distinction is crucial and vital.
It is in fact likely that the jury was not convinced at all, and in dubiety rightly refused to convict. The defendant must always have the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Yours faithfully,
ROGER LAKE
York
15 July
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments