Youngjae Lee was quoted in a Washington Post article about Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as Supreme Court justice.
It’s common for jurors to believe that a defendant committed the crime charged, yet still vote “not guilty” because they aren’t certain it’s been proven to the satisfaction of the legal system, according to Youngjae Lee, criminal law professor at Fordham University School of Law.
A 12-person jury could unanimously agree that there is a 75 percent possibility that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged — and that jury could still decide unanimously to acquit because the panelists think prosecutors have not proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Lee said.
“That is what the proof beyond a reasonable doubt demands,” Lee told The Post. “So it’s simply false to say that an acquittal is the same as proof of innocence in the criminal context.”
Lee explained that there were many possibilities to explain what the confirmation vote indicated about Kavanaugh’s innocence. It’s possible, for instance, that 98 senators unanimously believed he committed sexual assault, as alleged, but 50 still thought that he should be confirmed. Or, 98 senators could have unanimously believed he did not do it, and 48 of them still voted against confirmation, Lee said.
Additionally, Lee said, “there are many possibilities in between.” Either way, he added, for Trump to declare that Kavanaugh was proven innocent is a “wild overstatement to say the least, and very likely an inaccurate read of what happened.”
