Legal Definitions - risk of jury doubt

The term "risk of jury doubt" refers to the responsibility a party in a lawsuit bears to present enough convincing evidence to persuade the jury (or a judge, in a trial without a jury) of the truth of their claims. If, after considering all the evidence, the jury still harbors significant doubts about that party's case, then that party will lose on the specific issue in question. Essentially, the consequences of the jury not being convinced fall upon the party who carries this risk.

Here are some examples illustrating the "risk of jury doubt":

• Criminal Prosecution:

  Imagine a prosecutor charging a defendant with armed robbery. The prosecution presents eyewitness testimony, security camera footage, and forensic evidence linking the defendant to the crime. However, the defense introduces an alibi witness who claims the defendant was with them at the time of the robbery, and also points out inconsistencies in the eyewitness's description.

  In this scenario, the prosecution carries the "risk of jury doubt." They have the burden to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If, after hearing all the evidence and arguments, the jury still has a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant committed the robbery, the prosecution has failed to meet its burden. The defendant would then be found not guilty, demonstrating that the risk of the jury's doubt fell squarely on the prosecution.

• Civil Lawsuit (Plaintiff's Claim):

  Consider a homeowner suing a roofing company for breach of contract, claiming the new roof installed by the company leaks excessively, causing damage to the interior of their home. The homeowner (the plaintiff) presents photos of water damage, expert testimony about faulty installation, and invoices for repairs. The roofing company (the defendant) argues that the leaks are due to the homeowner's failure to properly maintain the gutters, not faulty installation.

  Here, the homeowner, as the plaintiff, bears the "risk of jury doubt" for their claim. They must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (meaning it's more likely than not) that the roofing company's work caused the leaks. If the jury finds the evidence equally balanced, or if they are simply not convinced that it was more likely the company's fault than the homeowner's maintenance, then the homeowner will lose their claim for damages. The doubt in the jury's mind means the plaintiff did not meet their burden.

• Civil Lawsuit (Defendant's Affirmative Defense):

  Suppose a person is sued for defamation after making a public statement about a local business owner. The defendant admits to making the statement but asserts an "affirmative defense" by claiming the statement was entirely true. In this situation, while the plaintiff initially has the burden to prove the elements of defamation, the defendant takes on the "risk of jury doubt" for their specific defense of truth.

  If the defendant presents evidence to support the truthfulness of their statement, but the jury remains unconvinced or finds it equally likely that the statement was false, then the defendant has failed to meet their burden on that affirmative defense. The "risk of jury doubt" on the issue of truth falls on the defendant, meaning their defense would fail, and they could still be found liable for defamation if the plaintiff successfully proved the initial elements of their case.