How Jurors' Beliefs Count

Abstract

This article develops a solution to the proof paradoxes. It argues that the standards of proof condition liability on jurors forming what philosophers call a full or outright belief that the defendant broke the law. This requirement solves the problems of statistical evidence and the conjunction of the elements, and it resolves a longstanding split among judges on jury instructions. The article also raises objections to previous solutions, including public acceptance, relative plausibility, and probabilistic knowledge.

Keywords: Evidence, Jurisprudence