Source of article ComCon - Communication Consulting.

Jurors who fail to reserve judgment against a defendant until after they hear the evidence are neither fair nor impartial. A problem for jurors is that the legal presumption of innocence can be at odds with their beliefs, pre-evidence, about the factual innocence of any defendant put on trial. Jurors recognize that criminal defendants are on trial because police officers, prosecutors, and preliminary hearing judges or grand jurors believe them to be guilty. Jurors also gain information in voir dire that can bias them with respect to the factual innocence of a criminal defendant. A key question is whether the legal principle of the presumption of innocence holds (or is even considered) after voir dire, or whether jurors’ assessments of factual innocence take precedence over legal innocence. Fischel (2023) examined jurors’ understanding and application of the legal and factual innocence of a defendant post-voir dire and pre-evidence….