After explaining the concept of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” many trial courts will conclude their burden of proof instructions by telling jurors “not to search for doubt” but instead “to search for the truth.” Criminal defense lawyers have argued that such truth-based instructions improperly lower the burden of proof to a mere preponderance of evidence standard. Prosecutors, however, have dismissed defense lawyers’ concerns as pure speculation. To resolve this dispute, Professor Lawrence White and I empirically tested the impact of truth-based jury instructions on verdicts. In our two recently published studies, mock jurors who received truth-based instructions convicted at significantly higher rates than jurors who were simply instructed on reasonable doubt. Jurors who received the truth-based instructions were also far more likely to mistakenly believe it was proper to convict even when they had a reasonable doubt about guilt. Based on plain language, logical argument, and now the supporting empirical evidence, we defense lawyers have been asking trial courts to remove truth-related language from their burden of proof jury instructions. Prosecutors, however, are fighting to keep these burden-lowering, truth-based instructions and have made twenty different arguments when attempting to preserve the status quo. This Article collects, organizes, and debunks these prosecutorial arguments. Its purpose is to assist criminal defense lawyers and judges in recognizing and responding to invalid arguments, many of which are based on logical fallacies, misstatements of law, misrepresentations of fact, or a gross misunderstanding of the scientific research. Debunking these prosecutorial arguments is a critical step in winning the battle over the burden of proof and protecting each defendant’s right to remain free of conviction “except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

中文翻译：

---

举证责任之争：战壕报告

在解释了“排除合理怀疑的证据”的概念后，许多初审法院会通过告诉陪审员“不要寻找怀疑”而是“寻找真相”来结束他们的举证责任指示。刑事辩护律师辩称，这种基于事实的指示不当地将举证责任降低到仅占优势的证据标准。然而，检察官将辩护律师的担忧视为纯粹的猜测。为了解决这一争议，劳伦斯怀特教授和我凭经验测试了基于真相的陪审团指令对判决的影响。在我们最近发表的两项研究中，接受基于真相指导的模拟陪审员的定罪率明显高于仅接受合理怀疑指导的陪审员。接受基于真相指示的陪审员也更有可能错误地认为定罪是适当的，即使他们对有罪有合理的怀疑。基于通俗易懂的语言、逻辑论证以及现在支持的经验证据，我们辩护律师一直要求初审法院从陪审团的举证责任指示中删除与真相相关的语言。然而，检察官正在努力保持这些减轻负担、基于事实的指示，并在试图维持现状时提出了 20 种不同的论点。本文收集、整理和揭穿这些起诉论点。其目的是协助刑事辩护律师和法官识别和回应无效论点，其中许多论点是基于逻辑谬误、法律错误陈述、事实陈述错误、或对科学研究的严重误解。揭穿这些起诉论点是赢得举证责任之战的关键一步，并保护每个被告“除非证据超出合理怀疑”而保持不被定罪的权利。